Settlement/purchase options, page-441

CC,

I have zero experience with this area of law, but from what I have been reading tonight you are probably correct in saying in civil fraud actions it comes down to the balance of probabilities.

I think we have to be a little careful here as only one person posting on this forum claims to have been in the court room today and their post also claims to be based on their memory of the conversations that occurred. To be safe, I think it is best to talk about this subject in absolutely generalised terms.

Firstly we don't even know if a conspiracy to defraud has even been formally alleged or pleaded as part of the present proceedings, however if you are interested in this area of law a good place to start reading is the dismissed High Court Appeal Judgment in Peters v The Queen.

https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#article=68095

The best description of the meaning of the term conspiracy to defraud I could find is written in paragraph 74.

"Thus, in most cases, a conspiracy to defraud arises when two or more persons agree to use dishonest means with the intention of obtaining, making use of or prejudicing another person's economic right or interest or inducing another person to act or refrain from acting to his or her economic detriment."

These would seem enormously difficult matters to prove in my opinion and regularly in non-civil cases they would come under the criminal law and would need to be investigated by police, with the collection of a lot of evidence, and prosecuted by the State before a judge and jury (is my understanding).

I think people could be getting way ahead of themselves on this forum at the moment and should be careful how they discuss this matter.

Eshmun