The sin of omission

Section 269 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 states:

“Where a formal investigation has been held under section 268 the Secretary of State may order the whole or part of the case to be re-heard, and shall do so —

(a) If new and important evidence which could not be produced at the investigation has been discovered; or

(b) If there appear to the Secretary of State to be other grounds for suspecting that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.”

Apart from the more common or the vulgaris types of fraud: i.e. fraud by false representation and failure to disclose information, the Fraud Act quoted earlier on these pages (see our post of 17 March 2007) also defines a more genteel, standoffish, whiter-collar type of offence, which is the ‘fraud by abuse of position’: i.e. "the offence committed by somebody who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, but who intentionally fails to do so, thus exposing that person to a loss or to a risk of a loss."

Further on, the Act explains: “a person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.”