United Arab Emirates v Amir

Dishonouring a cheque, without more, is not an offence under s2 of the Fraud Act. The relevant question is whether the particulars fairly allege an earlier dishonest representation or deception. Cheques may form part of a fraudulent scheme where they were used to induce payment. A prima facie case may be established by considering the evidence in its overall context, including related dealings with another complainant.

The Government of the United Arab Emirates appealed against the dismissal of its request for the extradition of Sheeraz Amir. The request concerned alleged fraud and the giving of cheques in bad faith arising from disputed property transactions. The district judge accepted that the alleged conduct satisfied the dual-criminality requirement but found the evidence insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The appeal concerned whether the allegations and evidence relating to two complainants, Mr Geoveridi and Mr Askari, disclosed offences capable of extradition.

1. The appeal was allowed. The allegations concerning both complainants were capable of establishing a prima facie case.
2. As to Mr Askari, the evidence that he paid Dhs 100,000 towards the purchase of the respondent’s flat, followed by information suggesting that the flat had been promised to other purchasers, was sufficient to raise a prima facie case of fraud. The second- or third-hand account of what others had said was inadmissible hearsay, but the admissible evidence remained relevant when assessed in context.
3. As to Mr Geoveridi, the court distinguished between a case based solely on the dishonouring of post-dated cheques and a case alleging that the cheques formed part of a fraudulent deception. Failure to honour a cheque is not, by itself, an offence under s2 of the Fraud Act.
4. On a fair reading, however, the particulars and investigation materials alleged that the respondent obtained Dhs 200,000 by inducing Mr Geoveridi to pay an advance for a property which he promised to transfer, with the cheques forming part of the arrangement. That allegation was capable of falling within s2.
5. The evidence that the cheques were dishonoured, together with the circumstances of the transaction, provided a case to answer. The respondent’s conduct towards Mr Askari supplied additional support for the allegation concerning Mr Geoveridi.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the district judge’s dismissal of the extradition request.