Reporting scam emails to Met Police

[Igor Mozolevsky]

On 4 December 2011 20:07, Clive D.W. Feather <clive at davros.org> wrote:
> Igor Mozolevsky said:
>>> Note that you need to show real loss, not just damage to reputation or
>>> something like that
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> No, you merely need to show that `another' has been exposed to a risk
>> of loss (second alternative in §(2(1)(b)(ii)); loss includes not
>> getting something that one might get (note `might' not `will')
>> (§5(4)). One may argue that damaged reputation exposes the person
>> whose reputation was damaged to a risk of loss as a consequence.
>
> I disagree. Claiming that a damaged reputation leads to financial loss is
> too remote. The court will interpret the Act on the basis that that wording
> is significant, and on your interpretation it is nugatory.


Not sure what you mean by my interpretation, I said that you don't
need to prove loss but merely intent to expose to a risk of loss,
which is what the act says and is supported by Archbold [2012] at
[21-370]...

Secondly there are authorities (granted, in a different context),
including the House of Lords ones, which recognise that damaged
reputation may lead to causal losses (e.g., Malik v. Bank of Credit
and Commerce Intl SA [1], where employees' future employment was
affected by employer's bad reputation). Like I said in my original
message, I don't know whether applying same reasoning, mutatis
mutandis, to fraud would work.


1. [1998] AC 20, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1997/23.html


Cheers,

--
Igor :-)