Asia China In China, according to the
Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the
Crime of Fraud () refers to the "criminal act of deceiving and obtaining public or private property". According to Article 266 of the Criminal Law:
India In India, the criminal laws are enshrined in the
Indian Penal Code, supplemented by the
Criminal Procedure Code and
Indian Evidence Act.
Philippines In the Philippines, fraud is called "
estafa", derived from the Spanish word "
estafar", meaning "to swindle or defraud", and is defined in the
Revised Penal Code. The penalties, which include imprisonment from six months to twenty years, depending on the value that was swindled, and may include
restitution.
Europe United Kingdom Since 2007, fraud in
England and Wales and
Northern Ireland has been covered by the
Fraud Act 2006. The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes: fraud by false representation, failure to disclose information, and by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud is liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to six months on
summary conviction, or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on
indictment. This Act largely replaces the laws relating to obtaining property by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage and other offences that were created under the
Theft Act 1978. As of 2025, the UK has a number of government agencies and services for the detection, prevention and management of fraud, working with a variety of private and public sector bodies to share information and formulate policy. These include the primary enforcement authorities: the
National Crime Agency,
HM Revenue and Customs, the
Financial Conduct Authority, the
Serious Fraud Office and the
Crown Prosecution Service, together with agencies such as the UK Financial Intelligence Unit,
City of London Police, the
National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, and the
National Cyber Crime Unit. The National Economic Crime Centre exists to coordinate the UK’s response to economic crime overall.
Statistics Scotland In
Scots law, fraud is covered under the common law and a number of statutory offences. The main fraud offences are common law fraud, uttering, embezzlement, and statutory fraud. The Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland.
North America Canada Section 380(1) of the
Criminal Code provides the general definition of fraud in Canada: In addition to the penalties outlined above, the court can also issue a prohibition order under s. 380.2 (preventing a person from "seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves having authority over the real property, money or valuable security of another person"). It can also make a restitution order under s. 380.3. The Canadian courts have held that the offence consists of two distinct elements: :* A prohibited act of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means. In the absence of deceit or falsehood, the courts will look objectively for a "dishonest act"; and :* The deprivation must be caused by the prohibited act, and deprivation must relate to property, money, valuable security, or any service. The
Supreme Court of Canada has held that deprivation is satisfied on proof of detriment, prejudice or risk of prejudice; there does not have to be actual loss. Deprivation of
confidential information, in the nature of a
trade secret or copyrighted material that has commercial value, has also been held to fall within the scope of the offence.
United States Criminal fraud The proof requirements for criminal fraud charges in the United States are essentially the same as the requirements for other crimes: guilt must be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt. Throughout the United States fraud charges can be misdemeanours or felonies depending on the amount of loss involved. High-value fraud can also trigger additional penalties. For example, in California, losses of $500,000 or more will result in an extra two, three, or five years in prison in addition to the regular penalty for the fraud. The U.S. government's 2006 fraud review concluded that fraud is a significantly under-reported crime, and while various agencies and organizations were attempting to tackle the issue, greater cooperation was needed to achieve a real impact in the public sector. The scale of the problem pointed to the need for a small but high-powered body to bring together the numerous counter-fraud initiatives that existed.
Civil fraud Although elements may vary by jurisdiction and the specific allegations made by a plaintiff who files a lawsuit that alleged fraud, typical elements of a fraud case are that: • Somebody
misrepresents a
material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person • The other person relies upon the misrepresentation • The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation. To establish a civil claim of fraud, most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element of a fraud claim be pleaded with particularity and be proved by a
preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not that the fraud occurred. Some jurisdictions impose a higher evidentiary standard, such as
Washington State's requirement that the elements of fraud be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence), or
Pennsylvania's requirement that common law fraud be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The measure of damages in fraud cases is normally computed using one of two rules: • The "benefit of bargain" rule, which allows for recovery of damages in the amount of the difference between the value of the property had it been as represented and its actual value; • Out-of-pocket loss, which allows for the recovery of damages in the amount of the difference between the value of what was given and the value of what was received.
Special damages may be allowed if shown to have been
proximately caused by the defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with
specificity. Some jurisdictions may permit a plaintiff in a fraud case to seek
punitive or exemplary damages.
Anti-fraud provisioning Beyond legislation directed at preventing or punishing fraud, some governmental and non-governmental organizations engage in anti-fraud efforts. Between 1911 and 1933, 47 states adopted the so-called
Blue Sky Laws status. These laws were enacted and enforced at the state level and regulated the offering and sale of
securities to protect the public from fraud. Though the specific provisions of these laws varied among states, they all required the registration of all securities offerings and sales, as well as of every U.S.
stockbroker and brokerage firm; however, these Blue Sky laws were generally found to be ineffective. To increase public trust in the capital markets,
Franklin D. Roosevelt established the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The main reason for the creation of the SEC was to regulate the
stock market and prevent
corporate abuses relating to the offering and sale of securities and corporate reporting. The SEC was given the power to license and regulate stock exchanges, the companies whose securities traded on them, and the brokers and dealers who conducted the trading.
Statistics Rate of fraud
per capita for individual countries as reported by
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is shown below for the last available year. Definitions of fraud and fraction of unreported fraud might differ for each country. ==Further reading==