Dgdrxrt

You cannot touch me, but I can touch you, who am I?

Hostile work environment after whistle-blowing on coworker and our boss. What do I do?

How to safely derail a train during transit?

Integer addition + constant, is it a group?

Sort a list by elements of another list

Why, precisely, is argon used in neutrino experiments?

Would a high gravity rocky planet be guaranteed to have an atmosphere?

A particular customize with green line and letters for subfloat

Why not increase contact surface when reentering the atmosphere?

Is it appropriate to ask a job candidate if we can record their interview?

What is the intuitive meaning of having a linear relationship between the logs of two variables?

Why are there no referendums in the US?

Term for the "extreme-extension" version of a straw man fallacy?

Roman Numeral Treatment of Suspensions

Anatomically Correct Strange Women In Ponds Distributing Swords

How can I kill an app using Terminal?

How does Loki do this?

How to run a prison with the smallest amount of guards?

How do we know the LHC results are robust?

How did Doctor Strange see the winning outcome in Avengers: Infinity War?

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

What does "I’d sit this one out, Cap," imply or mean in the context?

How does the UK government determine the size of a mandate?

Trouble understanding the speech of overseas colleagues

Can criminal fraud exist without damages?

Someone withdrew money from my bank account - what are my rights?Is a high % agent commission contract clause fraud in your jurisdiction?What is the difference between civil fraud and criminal fraud?Can the Feds not put Bank Executives (or their employees) in Prison for Fraud?Why a civil court can order damages for killing a person?How well can one know the rules in gambling before it's legally fraud?If the damages from a lawsuit force the defendant into bankruptcy, are they forgiven?How is getting foreign investors to support your bank fraud? (Barclays)Do we have attempted fraud laws like we have attempted murder?Is Intentional Immaterial Fraud Legal?

8

If I fraud someone, invest their money and pay it back is there any criminal offense? Does fraud require damages? Will most judges realistically treat this a criminal case?

united-states fraud

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

A. K.

1,4121127

asked yesterday

user24954user24954

5113

New contributor

user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
  
  – Ron Beyer
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @RonBeyer your case is different, because the robber has not committed fraud, but theft. And yes, it would still be a crime, even if you pay the money back later.
  
  – Shazamo Morebucks
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I feel like the last question should be edited out because it doesn't make sense. A case is either criminal or civil. Civil and criminal statutes are different (though sometimes related) and only a government prosecutor can bring a criminal charge against a person, while anyone can file civil charges. Most importantly, the a set of facts can give rise to both civil and criminal cases, or it could be sufficient for some but not others, or none.
  
  – IllusiveBrian
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Did you mean: "If I tell someone I put his money in some investment A, but I put his money into a different investment B, and then pay him back at the agreed time with the amount he expects if his money was invested in A, is it fraud?"
  
  – Alexander
  12 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Did you also pay interest on your fraudulently-acquired "loan"?
  
  – RonJohn
  10 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

8

If I fraud someone, invest their money and pay it back is there any criminal offense? Does fraud require damages? Will most judges realistically treat this a criminal case?

united-states fraud

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

A. K.

1,4121127

asked yesterday

user24954user24954

5113

New contributor

user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  If you rob a bank, spend the money, win the lottery and pay it back, is it still a crime?
  
  – Ron Beyer
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @RonBeyer your case is different, because the robber has not committed fraud, but theft. And yes, it would still be a crime, even if you pay the money back later.
  
  – Shazamo Morebucks
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I feel like the last question should be edited out because it doesn't make sense. A case is either criminal or civil. Civil and criminal statutes are different (though sometimes related) and only a government prosecutor can bring a criminal charge against a person, while anyone can file civil charges. Most importantly, the a set of facts can give rise to both civil and criminal cases, or it could be sufficient for some but not others, or none.
  
  – IllusiveBrian
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Did you mean: "If I tell someone I put his money in some investment A, but I put his money into a different investment B, and then pay him back at the agreed time with the amount he expects if his money was invested in A, is it fraud?"
  
  – Alexander
  12 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Did you also pay interest on your fraudulently-acquired "loan"?
  
  – RonJohn
  10 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

If I fraud someone, invest their money and pay it back is there any criminal offense? Does fraud require damages? Will most judges realistically treat this a criminal case?

united-states fraud

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

A. K.

1,4121127

asked yesterday

user24954user24954

5113

New contributor

user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

A. K.

1,4121127

asked yesterday

user24954user24954

5113

New contributor

user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

A. K.

1,4121127

asked yesterday

user24954user24954

5113

New contributor

user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

edited yesterday

A. K.

1,4121127

edited yesterday

A. K.

1,4121127

asked yesterday

user24954user24954

5113

New contributor

user24954 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked yesterday

user24954user24954

5113

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

22

If a person is wrongfully deprived of money (or something else of value) for a period, that is damage, even if the money is later repaid. The victim might have used the money in some profitable or advantageous way during the period when it was taken. But the victim need not prove exactly how s/he might have profited, it is enough to show that the victim was wrongfully deprived of something of value.

Of course, there are other elements to fraud. There must have been a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied. There must have been intent that the victim so relay. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage. (Or have gotten the Fraudster a benefit that would not have been provided had the victim known the truth.)

But assuming that all the elements of fraud are proved, restitution, even full restitution with interest, does not excuse the fraud.

However, as a practical matter, if offered full restitution on condition of a release or an agreement not to prosecute, many victims will choose to take it, preferring their money back, perhaps with interest, to a legal case, even a winning one.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered yesterday

David SiegelDavid Siegel

14.9k3159

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
  
  – user24954
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @user24954 "material" in this context usually means that the deception influenced the decision, or that it might have influenced the decision of a reasonable person. "caused or led to the damage" is also an element of fraud, and if there was no damage there was no fraud (possilby attempted fraud). But a cost later repaid is not "no damage".
  
  – David Siegel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I wonder where the line of wrongfully deprived is drawn. If I tell you "give me $1000, and in 6 months I will return you $5000 from the Nigerian prince I represent", but instead start a food truck business with the $1000, and give you the $5k as promised, I've clearly done something unethical, but nobody was deprived of anything they didn't agree to.
  
  – mbrig
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mbrig Thew risk that the food truck would fail to earn enough to pay back $5k is probably higher than the risk that the Prince won't have the cash. The was materiel deception with the intent of gain a benefit that would not otherwise have been gained. In most jurisdictions, that is also fraud. The damage was in getting the investor to take a risk that s/he would not have with accurate info.
  
  – David Siegel
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

You say "criminal fraud", if you mean exactly that, then no, returning the money, or offering even more money, will not be a defense.

You committed a crime and can be convicted for it even if you gave back more money than the complainant had "lost".

There may be a case for if someone initiated civil proceedings against you on the basis of fraud, since you can simply pay whatever damages that person may seek, and settle the claim.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,0621827

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  But note that fraud may entitle the victim to triple damages, or other damages beyond simple restitution, so the damages the victim may seek might not be the same as the original loss.
  
  – David Siegel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

user24954 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38459%2fcan-criminal-fraud-exist-without-damages%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

22

If a person is wrongfully deprived of money (or something else of value) for a period, that is damage, even if the money is later repaid. The victim might have used the money in some profitable or advantageous way during the period when it was taken. But the victim need not prove exactly how s/he might have profited, it is enough to show that the victim was wrongfully deprived of something of value.

Of course, there are other elements to fraud. There must have been a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied. There must have been intent that the victim so relay. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage. (Or have gotten the Fraudster a benefit that would not have been provided had the victim known the truth.)

But assuming that all the elements of fraud are proved, restitution, even full restitution with interest, does not excuse the fraud.

However, as a practical matter, if offered full restitution on condition of a release or an agreement not to prosecute, many victims will choose to take it, preferring their money back, perhaps with interest, to a legal case, even a winning one.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered yesterday

David SiegelDavid Siegel

14.9k3159

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
  
  – user24954
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @user24954 "material" in this context usually means that the deception influenced the decision, or that it might have influenced the decision of a reasonable person. "caused or led to the damage" is also an element of fraud, and if there was no damage there was no fraud (possilby attempted fraud). But a cost later repaid is not "no damage".
  
  – David Siegel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I wonder where the line of wrongfully deprived is drawn. If I tell you "give me $1000, and in 6 months I will return you $5000 from the Nigerian prince I represent", but instead start a food truck business with the $1000, and give you the $5k as promised, I've clearly done something unethical, but nobody was deprived of anything they didn't agree to.
  
  – mbrig
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mbrig Thew risk that the food truck would fail to earn enough to pay back $5k is probably higher than the risk that the Prince won't have the cash. The was materiel deception with the intent of gain a benefit that would not otherwise have been gained. In most jurisdictions, that is also fraud. The damage was in getting the investor to take a risk that s/he would not have with accurate info.
  
  – David Siegel
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

22

If a person is wrongfully deprived of money (or something else of value) for a period, that is damage, even if the money is later repaid. The victim might have used the money in some profitable or advantageous way during the period when it was taken. But the victim need not prove exactly how s/he might have profited, it is enough to show that the victim was wrongfully deprived of something of value.

Of course, there are other elements to fraud. There must have been a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied. There must have been intent that the victim so relay. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage. (Or have gotten the Fraudster a benefit that would not have been provided had the victim known the truth.)

But assuming that all the elements of fraud are proved, restitution, even full restitution with interest, does not excuse the fraud.

However, as a practical matter, if offered full restitution on condition of a release or an agreement not to prosecute, many victims will choose to take it, preferring their money back, perhaps with interest, to a legal case, even a winning one.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered yesterday

David SiegelDavid Siegel

14.9k3159

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Would the deception be material if there was no cost?
  
  – user24954
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @user24954 "material" in this context usually means that the deception influenced the decision, or that it might have influenced the decision of a reasonable person. "caused or led to the damage" is also an element of fraud, and if there was no damage there was no fraud (possilby attempted fraud). But a cost later repaid is not "no damage".
  
  – David Siegel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I wonder where the line of wrongfully deprived is drawn. If I tell you "give me $1000, and in 6 months I will return you $5000 from the Nigerian prince I represent", but instead start a food truck business with the $1000, and give you the $5k as promised, I've clearly done something unethical, but nobody was deprived of anything they didn't agree to.
  
  – mbrig
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mbrig Thew risk that the food truck would fail to earn enough to pay back $5k is probably higher than the risk that the Prince won't have the cash. The was materiel deception with the intent of gain a benefit that would not otherwise have been gained. In most jurisdictions, that is also fraud. The damage was in getting the investor to take a risk that s/he would not have with accurate info.
  
  – David Siegel
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

If a person is wrongfully deprived of money (or something else of value) for a period, that is damage, even if the money is later repaid. The victim might have used the money in some profitable or advantageous way during the period when it was taken. But the victim need not prove exactly how s/he might have profited, it is enough to show that the victim was wrongfully deprived of something of value.

Of course, there are other elements to fraud. There must have been a lie or deception, on which the victim reasonably relied. There must have been intent that the victim so relay. The deception must have been material and must have directly caused or led to the damage. (Or have gotten the Fraudster a benefit that would not have been provided had the victim known the truth.)

But assuming that all the elements of fraud are proved, restitution, even full restitution with interest, does not excuse the fraud.

However, as a practical matter, if offered full restitution on condition of a release or an agreement not to prosecute, many victims will choose to take it, preferring their money back, perhaps with interest, to a legal case, even a winning one.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered yesterday

David SiegelDavid Siegel

14.9k3159

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered yesterday

David SiegelDavid Siegel

14.9k3159

answered yesterday

David SiegelDavid Siegel

14.9k3159

answered yesterday

David SiegelDavid Siegel

14.9k3159

8

You say "criminal fraud", if you mean exactly that, then no, returning the money, or offering even more money, will not be a defense.

You committed a crime and can be convicted for it even if you gave back more money than the complainant had "lost".

There may be a case for if someone initiated civil proceedings against you on the basis of fraud, since you can simply pay whatever damages that person may seek, and settle the claim.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,0621827

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  But note that fraud may entitle the victim to triple damages, or other damages beyond simple restitution, so the damages the victim may seek might not be the same as the original loss.
  
  – David Siegel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

You say "criminal fraud", if you mean exactly that, then no, returning the money, or offering even more money, will not be a defense.

You committed a crime and can be convicted for it even if you gave back more money than the complainant had "lost".

There may be a case for if someone initiated civil proceedings against you on the basis of fraud, since you can simply pay whatever damages that person may seek, and settle the claim.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,0621827

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  But note that fraud may entitle the victim to triple damages, or other damages beyond simple restitution, so the damages the victim may seek might not be the same as the original loss.
  
  – David Siegel
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

You say "criminal fraud", if you mean exactly that, then no, returning the money, or offering even more money, will not be a defense.

You committed a crime and can be convicted for it even if you gave back more money than the complainant had "lost".

There may be a case for if someone initiated civil proceedings against you on the basis of fraud, since you can simply pay whatever damages that person may seek, and settle the claim.

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,0621827

share|improve this answer

answered yesterday

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,0621827

answered yesterday

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,0621827

answered yesterday

Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,0621827