The Man in the Mauve Hat
S.2 Fraud Act, 2006
In the UK the Fraud Act 2006 states that a person is guilty of fraud if they:
a) dishonestly make a false representation;
b) to make a gain for themselves or to cause a loss to another.
A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making the representation knows it is untrue or misleading.
​
We have identified a number of WHITE's victims; we will now consider whether, in our opinion, WHITE has committed the offence of fraud contrary to S.2 Fraud Act, 2006.
Points to Prove:
The defendant -
​
1. Made a false representation;
A representation includes not only a representation of a fact, but also of a state of mind, so claiming an intention to do something when the intention does not exist would be a false representation. WHITE has made several. Claiming that money is required upfront for the purchase of materials, without ever intending to order or pay for those materials, is a false representation. Sending an invoice from a company which does not exist and is not registered at Companies House is a false representation. Requesting money the day after the legitimate company for which you are a director was dissolved, is a false representation. Listing an address on your invoice which is neither a personal or corporate address is a false representation. POINT PROVEN!
​
2. Knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading;
It can often be difficult to determine what an individual "knew" - or their mens rea - at the time of the offence, however, we can apply the test of "reasonableness" as well as drawing inferences from behaviour. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that WHITE knew he did not reside at the address he provided on his invoice, and that his company had dissolved the day before he sent an invoice for further payments. We can infer that WHITE had no intention of ordering materials he had been paid for from the fact that he had ample opportunity to do so; and we can infer that White had no intention of finishing building work he had begun from the fact that he failed to contact the planning department for these works. In the absence of any reasonable explanation from WHITE, The Man in the Mauve Hat says: POINT PROVEN!
​
3. With intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
What is important here is the intent to make a gain or cause a loss. This means that, even if WHITE did not make a gain, and returned all the money that was paid to him by his victims, he is still capable of committing the offence, because he intended to gain from his actions. This is clearly evidenced in the communications and invoices sent by WHITE requesting money - he was requesting payment for a service that he had not rendered and had no intention of ever rendering, therefore, the offence is complete. POINT PROVEN!
Justice?
There are three obstacles to justice in this case:
​
-
BEDFORDSHIRE CONSTABULARY: WHITE's crimes have been reported to the local constabulary. You can see their response HERE. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
​
-
MARKETPLACE WEBSITES: WHITE has been allowed to advertise on marketplace websites such as findatrade.com and bark.com using false company details. We want to see due diligence being conducted by these online businesses, to verify that the companies they allow to advertise on their platforms are actually registered with Companies House. If you share our view, LET THEM KNOW!
-
YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE: If you work with ANDREW WHITE, do business with him or support his activities in any way, YOU ARE COMPLICIT! If you live off his earnings, accept his money or take any gifts from him, YOU ARE COMPLICIT! If you know ANDREW WHITE and do nothing to prevent him from preying on other innocent victims, YOU ARE COMPLICIT!
Share the link to warn your friends: