Scam And Deception, How Are They Different?

The relationship between fraud and deception, legally, is very interesting. As indicated in the law, fraud is committed by those who, for profit, deceive another person enough to cause him to make a mistake and carry out an act of disposition (giving money, for example) to his or her own or someone else’s detriment. third.

set of goods that are under the power of disposition of a person. patrimonial damage.

Thus, through the aforementioned definition, the one contained in the Penal Code, we find the elements that criminally develop this crime; deception, error, act of patrimonial disposition, profit motive and damage.

Deception, from this perspective, can be understood as one of the defining elements. However, the relationship between scam and deception is quite complex. Let’s explore the differences between the two concepts.

The crime of fraud and deception

When it is said that deception is one of the fundamental elements of the crime of fraud, it must be understood as an incongruity between reality and what the fraudster says. In this way, the perpetrator of the crime, when he establishes contact with the victim, is aware that what he says is not true; acts maliciously.

Be careful, lying is not the same as cheating, even if they are concepts that go hand in hand. A lack of truth between what is thought and what is said is a lie, and the lie as such is not the typical deception of the crime of fraud.

As mentioned above, it is imperative that the deception is enough to mislead the victim. This means that the scammer must have planned and executed the deception in a way that is credible. For example, exaggerating a tragic personal situation to apply for a loan to a friend or to beg is not a scam, even if the money was finally obtained.

The doctrine has considered that to be considered state, the fraud maneuver (deception) must appear real. It must appear serious enough for a person of average knowledge, insight, and intelligence to believe it.

Thus, buying tea bags at a flea market believing that this is how love will be found, is not a scam. But if it were children, elderly people, also those without any type of studies, or who have a disability, it would be a crime of fraud. This is because they are people of special vulnerability who could easily believe what a person of average capacity understands as a hoax.

The duty of self-protection

The law, by establishing as a necessary element that deception be serious and credible, establishes the so-called duty of self-protection. This situation has caused problems because, generally, in fraud crimes the victim tends to show a personality marked by credulity, trust and good faith.

Where is the boundary between the execution of a truly credible hoax and a person’s good faith in believing any lie to determine whether it is a scam or not?

Let’s think that if a person paid a high amount of money for tea bags to find love for 10 years, and finally wanted to report it, the seller of the bags would not be convicted as a scammer because it would not be a serious enough hoax. and credible. No one of average intelligence and ability would believe that formula could work.

However, the personal circumstances of each may vary. A person, even if he is not in the group of special vulnerability, may find himself in a delicate situation that leads him to fall for a scam. For example, paying money to someone who claims to do magic to cure a terminal illness of a desperate relative.

Thus, limits are established on the duty of self-protection. In order to analyze whether it is a scam, in some cases it is necessary to investigate the personal situation of the victim. Also how the author developed the deception, and in general the circumstances that caused the events.

Thus, for example, if a professional who works in a bank is deceived when signing a loan, it is very possible that he will not be able to report the facts as a crime of fraud. This is because he is an expert person who has a duty to know how to protect himself in his work.

On the other hand, if the same deception were carried out before a person who does not have this duty of protection, it could be a scam, even if they are not a particularly vulnerable person.