Case of Defendants agreeing to make illegal copies of a cinema’s films and sell them to X.
Common law conspiracy to defraud existed without requirement for “deceit” to play a role.
Similarly CA said that conspiracy to defraud did not necessarily impose a loss on the people who were being defrauded.
However, since it was being done without the cinema owners’ consent, it was defrauding them
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.