Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception

Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception was formerly a statutory offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. However, the offence still subsists in certain other common law jurisdictionswhich have copied the English criminal model.

The offence was created by section 16 of the Theft Act 1968. At the time of its repeal it read:

This offence replaced the offence of obtaining credit by fraud, contrary to section 13(1) of the Debtors Act 1869.

The elements of the actus reus are similar to the offence of obtaining property by deception:

The expression "pecuniary advantage" was defined by section 16(2). The definition was "exclusive".

Section 16(2)(a) read:

(a) any debt or charge for which he makes himself liable or is or may become liable (including one not legally enforceable) is reduced or in whole or in part evaded or deferred; [...]

See Director of Public Prosecutions v Turner [1974] AC 537, [1973] 3 WLR 352, 117 SJ 664, [1973] 3 All ER 124, 57 Cr App R 932, [1974] Crim LR 186, HL, reversing sub nom R v Turner [1973] 1 WLR 653.

In R v Royle,Lord Edmund-Davies described it as "a juridical nightmare". It was repealed by section 5(5) of the Theft Act 1978.

Section 16(2)(b) covers the situation in Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles (which is described in the article Deception (criminal law)) where writing the cheque backed by a card obtains an unauthorised overdraft even though the deception operates on the mind of the person accepting the cheque and not on the mind of a bank officer. In most cases, the granting of credit may be machine-based with reference to a bank officer only being made when larger sums of money are involved. Where the pecuniary advantage is the obtaining of an overdraft facility at a bank, it is only necessary to show that the facility was granted, not that the defendant actually used the facility.

...
Wikipedia