Well, this is where I got in trouble for not being precise (and opting for grad school over law school 20 years ago). I did a quick check, and yeah, fraud is always considered intentional, but a person can be misrepresenting things, deliberately or not, and that would be fraud, too. So in that sense, I meant that it could be Peters was misrepresenting what he was doing out of ignorance that what he was, allegedly, being fraudulent. In that sense, I would think claiming I had no intent to defraud would be a weak defense, at least, because I'm still negligent of misrepresenting myself.
There are better people than I lurking out there who can clear those waters up even more.
Fraud can be either civil or criminal, and that makes things (more) confusing. This is more likely to be civil (but see
infra). Hang on, I'll get there. If you ignore the ad at the end of this article, this actually
a pretty good summary of which is which.
The main gist of it is a purposeful misrepresentation of a material fact, intended to mislead, which the plaintiff (or the public, in many instance of criminal fraud) relied upon and suffered actual damages therefrom.
- Civil - it's an intentional tort. Damage must be shown.
- Criminal - generally brought for cases of trying to defraud the public. Doesn't matter if the fraud was successful. This is racketeering but it can also be bankruptcy fraud.
Here's
civil. Let's say you tell me you're a famous book agent and you're going to get my next work shopped around and published and I'm gonna make a mint. I rely on you - and I don't query anywhere. I just let you do your thing. Furthermore, let's say it's a nonfiction work which is very time-sensitive, say, a bio of John Kasich. I rely on you. You don't get me my book deal, and, in fact, you spent the time you were allegedly trying to work for me getting a nice tan in Aruba. Sadness ensues. Do I have the elements of the tort? You betcha. You made a purposeful misrepresentation. You intended to mislead me (you meanie, you). I relied on what you said. But what are my damages? After all, I might not have been published either way. But - here's where it gets interesting - I could have had other benefits from querying my work independently of you, including establishing a reputation with reputable publishers and agents. The amount of damages may turn out to be small. It could even be a buck. But it's enough to meet the threshold. Standard of proof is higher than that in most civil cases (including IP infringement): clear and convincing evidence.
Here's
criminal. Let's say you send a document that looks a lot like a medical bill to my aged parents (for shame!). Everything looks in order. You just need my Dad's Social Security number. He doesn't check closely (the dude is, after all, turning 85 in about 6 weeks), and sends the information to you before my mother can stop him or intercept the mail. You steal his identity, and order a credit card in his name, etc. You have defrauded my father, yes, but you've also defrauded the public, by pretending to be him (e. g. the credit card company is also a victim, the retailers where you shop in my Dad's name are victims, etc. It's a mess). This site gives a good rundown on
identity theft and other forms of criminal fraud. Standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil means monetary damages. Criminal means possibly restitution, and even jail time. It's usually a felony.
#FunFact - the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony is that a felony can bring a year or more of jail time. This is even if the sentence ends up being less than that; it's sufficient if it's possible. The year can't be an accumulated amount of time from a bunch of shorter-term misdemeanors.
