Reporting scam emails to Met Police

Igor Mozolevsky mozolevsky at
Sun Dec 4 22:34:06 GMT 2011

On 4 December 2011 20:07, Clive D.W. Feather <clive at> 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

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,


Igor :-)

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list