In the Scottish Courts
| Published date | 01 October 1967 |
| Date | 01 October 1967 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201836703100406 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Scottish Courts
PREVENTION
OF
FRAUD
(INVESTMENTS)
ACT
1958-RELEVANCY--
,
ARRANGEMENTS'
Tweedle
v. H.M. Adv.
T
HE
unreported case of
Tweedle
v. H.M. Adv. (Criminal
Appeal Court, March, 1966) raised two questions on
the
Prevention of
Fraud
(Investments) Act
1958,
section 13(1) (b)
as amended by
the
Protection of Depositors Act
1963.
The
accused were alleged to have sold cigarette machines to
various persons by promising
them
that for a capital payment
of £130 they could earn themselves between £3 and £20 a
week.
The
Crown alleged
that
the
circulars which contained
this statement were misleading and were made recklessly.
Section 13 (I) (b) of
the
1958
Act, as amended by
the
1963
Act, provides
that
"any
person who
...
by
the
reckless making
...
of any statement, promise or forecast which is misleading,
false or deceptive, induces or attempts to induce another
person
...
to take part or offer to take part in any arrangements
with respect to property other
than
securities, being arrange-
ments
the
purpose or effect, or pretended purpose or effect,
of which is to enable persons taking
part
in
the
arrangements
(whether by becoming owners of
the
property
...
or otherwise)
to participate in or receive profits or income alleged to arise
..
.
from
the
acquisition, holding, management or disposal of such
property
...
" shall be guilty of an offence.
The
indictment in
the
instant case set
out
the
contents
of
the
circular and went on to libel
that
the
accused sent this
circular to certain named persons, and thereby induced
them
to enter into agreements to purchase cigarette machines.
On appeal,
the
defence argued
that
this indictment was
irrelevant in
that
it failed to disclose any offence, and
that
this
made it fundamentally null so
that
they were entitled to have
the
conviction quashed although this particular argument
had
not
been raised in
the
lower court.
The
basis of
their
argument, which was accepted by
the
court, was
that
the
essence of
the
crime created by section 13 (I) (b) was
not
261
To continue reading
Request your trial