Talk:Fraud/Archives/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Notable fraudsters
What is the order of the list? I suggest to list them in alphabetical order and grouping them (bank fraudsters, medicare fraudsters, etc.) Konullu (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, it was more or less succesfully alphabetised until you came along in November and messed it up. In English, we alphabetise by surname. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Elements of common law fraud in US
From the article: In the United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting fraud: Five of the nine listed items refer to the "plaintiff" (meaning the victim of the fraud).
However, the role of plaintiff is only applicable in civil law (tort), not criminal law. Since this article is about both criminal fraud and civil fraud (tort), I think this section should make clear that these are the elements of civil fraud. Both of the cited references are court decisions in cases of civil fraud, and say nothing about criminal fraud. So the sentence would read: In the United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting civil fraud:
Of course, this leaves criminal fraud undefined. So alternatively, and I think preferably, we should replace the word "plaintiff" with the word "victim" in items 5 through 9. This would encompass both civil and criminal fraud. That's under the assumption that the elements of fraud are the same, whether criminal or civil. But I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, and I haven't researched this. Can we have an opinion from someone who knows the law?