Talk:Cheating (law)

Cut
The article contains the following passage:


 * However, in most jurisdictions, the offence has now been codified into statute. For example, in the United Kingdom see section 25(5) of the Theft Act 1968.

I think: (1) Section 25(5) did not create an offence. (2) The offence created by section 25(1) (going equipped) was not called cheating, was not a form of cheating, and was not a codification of cheating. (3) I am not sure whether section 15 could be described as a codification of cheating as it replaced section 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916.

I am going to excise the second sentence for the time being.James500 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 25(1) (re)codified the offence of going equipped for cheat, but didn't define what "cheat" was. Section 25(5) implicitly did that, by saying that the word "cheat" in this context referred to an offence under section 15. However, the section 15 offence ("obtaining property by deception", per the section heading) was not referred to in that section, or anywhere else for that matter, as "cheating". On the face of it this is an odd way to formulate a law; why would use the word "cheat" at all? I'd guess (with no good evidence) it's because these offences previously existed (as "cheating" and "going equipped for cheat") and these sections merely (re)codified them. Hairy Dude (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)