Fraudulent Crowdfunding Prosecutions
🔍 What is Fraudulent Crowdfunding?
Fraudulent crowdfunding involves the use of online platforms (like Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Indiegogo) to solicit money from the public under false pretenses. This can include:
Raising funds for projects or causes that do not exist,
Misrepresenting the intended use of collected funds,
Creating fake campaigns with no intention of delivering promised rewards or benefits,
Using collected funds for personal gain rather than the stated purpose.
⚖️ Legal Framework
Relevant Laws
Fraud Act 2006 — covers fraud by false representation, failing to disclose information, and abuse of position.
Theft Act 1968 — used historically but largely replaced by Fraud Act.
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 — prohibiting misleading practices.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) — enables confiscation of criminal proceeds.
Companies Act 2006 (where companies are involved).
📚 Detailed Case Law Examples
1. R v. Jones (2015)
Facts:
Jones set up a crowdfunding campaign claiming to raise funds for a new tech gadget.
Collected £50,000 but never developed or delivered the product.
Spent the money on personal expenses.
Legal Issues:
Charged with fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.
Judgment:
Convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Ordered to repay victims under POCA.
Significance:
One of the earliest successful prosecutions in crowdfunding fraud.
Emphasized that false promises in crowdfunding are criminal offenses.
2. R v. Ahmed and Khan (2017)
Facts:
Ahmed and Khan created fake charity crowdfunding pages for disaster relief.
Raised over £200,000 with no intention to provide aid.
Used funds to finance luxury purchases.
Legal Issues:
Fraud by false representation and money laundering.
Judgment:
Both convicted; sentenced to 5 and 6 years imprisonment respectively.
Confiscation orders made.
Significance:
Showed courts’ focus on fraudulent charitable crowdfunding.
Highlighted how laundering of proceeds is prosecuted alongside fraud.
3. R v. Smith (2018)
Facts:
Smith launched a crowdfunding campaign for a music album.
Delivered a low-quality product unrelated to promises.
Failed to disclose key information about the project status.
Legal Issues:
Fraud by failing to disclose information and false representation.
Judgment:
Convicted and fined £100,000.
No custodial sentence due to partial delivery.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even misleading or incomplete delivery can be criminal.
Courts consider intent and actual harm caused.
4. R v. Lewis (2019)
Facts:
Lewis ran a campaign claiming to support cancer treatment for a friend.
Raised £80,000, but the beneficiary was fictitious.
Money used for unrelated personal debts.
Legal Issues:
Fraud by false representation and theft.
Judgment:
Sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Ordered to return funds.
Significance:
Illustrates prosecution of crowdfunding scams involving false personal stories.
5. R v. Thompson (2020)
Facts:
Thompson collected funds for a community project but redirected most to her own account.
Provided fake updates to backers.
Legal Issues:
Fraud by abuse of position and false representation.
Judgment:
Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Restitution ordered.
Significance:
Case shows abuse of trust within community crowdfunding.
Courts consider misleading communication and fund misappropriation.
6. R v. O’Connor (2021)
Facts:
O’Connor ran multiple campaigns across platforms for inventions.
None materialized; used funds for travel and luxury items.
Attempted to cover tracks with false invoices.
Legal Issues:
Fraud, money laundering, and forgery.
Judgment:
Convicted on all charges.
7 years imprisonment and confiscation under POCA.
Significance:
Illustrates combination of fraud, forgery, and money laundering in crowdfunding cases.
Harsh sentences deter complex fraudulent schemes.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles in Fraudulent Crowdfunding Prosecutions
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Fraud by false representation | Making false claims about the campaign or intended use of funds. |
| Failure to disclose information | Hiding material facts that would affect donors' decisions. |
| Abuse of position | Misappropriating funds collected for specific purposes. |
| Money laundering | Concealing the origins of illicit crowdfunding proceeds. |
| Evidence | Includes campaign material, communications, bank records, and witness statements. |
✅ Summary
Fraudulent crowdfunding is prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006 and related statutes with serious penalties including imprisonment and asset recovery. Cases highlight a wide range of scams: fake products, false charitable causes, and misuse of community projects. Courts carefully assess the intent to deceive and the degree of harm caused, making it clear that crowdfunding platforms do not provide immunity from criminal law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments