Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8405700410 |
| Date | 01 October 1984 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Published date | 01 October 1984 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR SIR JOHN WOOD, C.B.E., LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield.
Legal Correspondent
of
the Police Journal.
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
COMPUTER
FRAUD
R. v. Thompson [1984] IW.L.R. 962 Court of Appeal
The appellant was employed as a computer operator in the
Commercial Bank of Kuwait in Kuwait. He misused his skill as
follows. First he opened accounts in his own name at five branches of
the Kuwaiti Bank. He then identified accounts in those branches
which had substantial balances and were rarely used. He put into the
computeracomplicated programme to move sums across to his own
accounts, recorded only at the local branches
and
devised so as to
wipe off evidence of its existence. He left Kuwait ostensibly on leave,
and opened accounts for himself in banks into which he withdrew the
money from his Kuwaiti accounts. The Kuwaiti bank looked at its
records and approved the transfers which amounted to about
£45,000.
He was charged at Leeds Crown Court on six counts of obtaining
property by deception, and was convicted and sentenced to 15
months' imprisonment on each count concurrently. The basic issue
raised on appeal was whether the obtaining had taken place within
the jurisdiction of the criminal law, that is to say in England rather
than
Kuwait.
It
was central to the prosecution case that the obtaining
occurred when the monies were received by his English accounts. The
defence argued the obvious point that the money transferred was
already in his Kuwaiti accounts so the obtaining must have taken
place in that country. It was argued that s. 15concerned ownership,
possession or control, not lawful title. He plainly had them until the
bank
discovered the fraud. Indeed the very act of transferring them
to England indicated that they were "his" balances. This view was
supported in R. v. Kohn (1979) 69 Cr. App. R. 395. This case
concerned the simple act of an accountant wrongly drawing money
from accounts of companies, using theircheques. Where the account
in question was in credit, this was held to be obtaining a chose in
action. So it was where the account was overdrawn,
but
not so where
overdraft facilities had not been granted. In those circumstances the
Court
of Appeal held that the
bank
had no obligation to pay the
cheque.
That
is to say there was no chose in action.
Turningto Thompson's acts, May, LJ, did not find a validchose in
action created by the fraudulent transfer of accounts in Kuwait. He
dealt also with the suggestion that the accounts from which the
transfer
took
place had lost money. This was now under Thompson's
control. But May, LJ, asked the basic question - what property had
been brought under control? Acredit balance obtained by fraud is
382 October /984
To continue reading
Request your trial