From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Crime (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Business / Accounting  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Accounting task force.
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.


So Uri Geller cannot be a fraud because he does not commit a crime? Andries 04:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article discusses the crime named "fraud", which has a specific meaning in common and statute law. If Uri Geller has committed that crime, then he is literally a fraudster, yes. However, we also often use crimes as metaphors in English -- "The Red Sox murdered the Yankees," "Douglas Hofstadter stole the word 'meme' from Richard Dawkins," "The corporate restructuring raped, pillaged, and looted the IT department." In this sense, if Uri Geller makes his living by fooling people, he is a fraud even if he has not actually committed the crime called "fraud".
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't usually record every metaphoric or dialect use of a word that happens to be the title of an article. In a dictionary, entries are about words and their usages. In an encyclopedia, articles are about things that the words just happen to refer to. --FOo 05:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lawyers seem to like capturing words and seizing them for their own use, then referring to everyone else's use of them as technically incorrect and mere metaphor! Case in point: John Austin actually declared that the word "law" itself, when used to describe laws of nature, was merely an analogy and basically metaphorical, while etymologists believe that the word "law" was actually in existence and usage before lawyers took it over. It's obviously correct to say that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But do look "fraud" up in the dictionary! According to the Oxford English Dictionary fraud has two meanings - the legal sense and the wider sense of intended deception (I am slightly dubious whether the OED has nailed the second definition spot on - three other dictionaries require wrongdoing or unfairness even in the broad sense of the word, but the OED only requires intent to deceive. But please note that all 4 definitions I have checked up in refer to a wider phenomenon of fraud, and two of them don't note the legal meaning at all!). The wider use is not just a misapplication of the strict legal sense of fraud, it is not just a metaphor, it actually refers to a phenomenon in its own right - one that spans art, scientific research, medicine, politics and entertainment. This phenomenon is not so broad that it would be unencylopaedic to cover it. Further, you can't just say "for information on the non-legal sense of fraud, see Hoax", because the phenomonen of fraud actually encompasses things like ballot fraud which hoax doesn't. It will take some work to produce a wider article, but for now I will at least change the wording of the introduction and put in a link to "Hoax" which covers some frauds which are not frauds in the legal sense. --VivaEmilyDavies 23:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When editing this I removed the reference to Pater Pio under the criminal fraud section (as a "pious fraud"). Did he really commit criminal fraud? I believe he was a hoax, but was he acting for personal gain? If not he isn't even a fraud in the civil law sense, or even in the broadest, not specifically legal, sense if you ignore the OED and include a requirement of personal gain for fraud. At any rate (a) his own article doesn't list him as a certified fraud, declaring him to be one here would be both inconsistent and POV (especially as anyone wanting to defend Pater Pio from allegations of fraud might not know to come here and do it - this page links to Pater Pio but not vice versa) and (b) the place to cite him as a fraud would be in the "examples" section further below - but those known examples seem to done-and-dusted, legally-proven cases of fraud, amongst which Pater Pio does not fit. "Pious frauds" as an idea is well worth keeping in the example, and hopefully will be made into a very interesting article, quite probably covering Pater Pio - but that's the place to do it, not a throwaway reference here! --VivaEmilyDavies 00:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, thinking about it, I don't think the statement on the legal definition is correct either - fraud doesn't have to be a tort or crime in its own right, I know that at least in England and Wales, "fraud" may form an element of another crime, such as kidnap. Some work needs to be done... -- 18:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent hoax[edit]

We should merge some content from Hoax and Fraud to Fraudulent hoax. --TheSamurai 23:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ManyFacets 8:49, 8 Dec 2005(EST) Legally, fraud has some very specific definitions. Since I am not a lawyer, and do not even play one on the Internet, can a lawyer or law student take a look and add the below constituents of fraud to the wiki definition?:

The elements of fraud are:
1 An affirmative misrepresentation
2 Scienter – Intent
3 Must be intended to induce reliance.
4 There must be reliance.
5 Must be damage

Fraud & Skimming Cases[edit]

According to rules and regulations any card available at the merchant outlet or swiped before reported lost/stolen or skimmed, the card holder would be liable to all the transactions. why would one go through the whole saga of dispute when he/she is liable for the transaction even when he/she did not participate in it. There is no 100% trust on these pieces of plastic? What can be done to prevent fraud and skimming cases? What happens if the organisation doesn't have the amount of customers to meet the chip & pin standards?

Employers fraud?[edit]

If an employer intentionally under-pays its workers, presenting the amount of wages paid as the correct amount (e.g. by reducing hours on wage slip or miscalculating) when the correct wages would be higher, is that fraud? Or is that some other crime? I assume it is a crime? N-edits 16:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


The "N..." word appears on the wikipedia page for 'fraud', over and over. I dont know how to remove this. It only shows when you use the small search box and type in "fraud", but not when you search from the homepage. It doesn't appear to be editable. Please remove this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Addition of "g00ns" to Notable Fraudsters[edit]

I believe the ^subject headline^ should be executed. However, if others believe this would boost their morale, ignore my request.

Adding a link[edit]

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about spotting and reporting email scams would be appropriate and mutually beneficial because it would give fed up patrons of Wikipedia the opportunity to see justice served. The link is please consider it. Jrosenfe 16:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See Also[edit]

A link to Fraud deterrence should be included in the "See Also" section. 4111cca 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the link, but in the future you can be bold and add it yourself. Also, don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your posts. Natalie 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to be bold, but the article was semi-protected and wouldn't let me change it. Sorry about the sig.... 4111cca 18:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't notice it was semi protected. We've had problems with a persistent IP vandal. Natalie 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny enough, it now lets me edit it, anywho, thanks for doing it anyway! 4111cca 18:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your account is four days old, so it is now "autoconfirmed" - you can now edit semiprotected pages as well as move pages. Natalie 21:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

First footnote[edit]

The first footnote in this article appears to be a link to a commercial website. Shouldn't it be removed?

trimming the see also section[edit]

The see also section is getting a bit too long to be very useful, but I'm not sure what should be cut. I did notice, though, that most of the see alsos are specific types of fraud, so perhaps we should create a "types of fraud" category or page and then simply direct people to that. Thoughts? Natalie 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See External links! does not exist[edit]

Checked on and it says Small Scams does NOT exist. You should remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortisever (talkcontribs) 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Shinichi Fujimura[edit]

Here is the article about the criminal offense. Although Fujimura's misconduct can be seen as a fraud in the general meaning, there's more suitable article such as Scientific misconduct or Academic dishonesty, in which Fujimura was already mentioned. And I think there is a more appropriate example of scientific fraud than Fujimura's one. --Amagase (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the more famous examples of scientific frauds than Fujimura. You satisfy this, don't you? And I warn Appletrees not to make a personal attack without any evidence --Amagase (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what you're thinking. Fujimura has been more famous and conducted shocking incident in history field for a long time. I warn you about your personal attack and 'bad faith' edit. Besides, the case is so famous that the information has been addressed for over 2 years here. If you want to complain about the information being here, do to Fujimura who committed the crime, or User:Skysmith who initially added the info, or other editors who agreed with the addition for 2 years. As you wrote the above statement, you declared the "revenge" as contrasting you-know-what cases. I pointed out your bad assumption, and why would be falsely blamed of making such act by you? It is so funny. --Appletrees (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well most people don't agree your opinion. Here are the google search results.
747 hits for "Fujimura shinichi"
114,000 hits for "Hwang Woo Suk"
33,000 hits for "Charles Dawson"
You imply I'm covering up the awkward case for Japanese, because I am a Japanese user. The reason why I removed the Fujimura's link is shown above and it's obviously reasonable. But you reverted my edit so I compromised and added the more suitable names for scientific frauds. AND YOU REVERT MY EDITS AGAIN AND LEAVE ONLY THE FUJIMURA'S CASE. Do you have any comments? I remember you wrote a nasty message in the edit summary box of the other article. If you would continue to criticize me without evidence, I should bring your attitude into official question. --Amagase (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of people? Who? With what definition and ground? Even if you're right, mentioning 'most people' is meaningless here and unwarranted for your claim. The result by the "Japanese" google engine with "English name" shows a defect to justify your act. I certainly left your addition which is a compromised version, so please try to say "truth". If your edits don't constitute to Wikipedia policies, I have a valid reason to "REVERT YOUR EDIT". What is official question? Are you threatening me? Thus, you are also violating WP:OWN and WP:THREAT Don't forget you already violated WP:3RR but I let it because I expected you to behave civil. If you keeping such, you better prepare to be questioned for your conduct. --Appletrees (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Google results don't change if you would switch your interface language. I showed the google results as a source of my opinion, but what is your ground? You show nothing and just repeat the reverts. I have checked your recent edits and easily noticed your obvious anti-Japanese and Korean nationalistic attitude. All of your edits in the ancient Japan-related articles, such as Talk:Japanese language or Talk:Imperial House of Japan are based on the spread-eagleism with dubious sources. Why you use more reliable source such as academic journals or evaluated books? If you want to bring the discussion to the administrator's board, feel free to do so. --Amagase (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You're speaking a totally irrelevant matter here which doesn't make your edit legitimate. I already said my rationale above, because his fraud is very notable and suits for what fraud defines. You keep making personal attacks and falsely accusing me of removing your edit that is surely a LIE. Then you call me "anti-Japanese sentiement" and "nationalistic Korean"? Your ill faith and personal attacks are not tolerable. I already acknowledge your behavior as removing all mentions about Korean on ancient history of Japan. So your allegation looks groundless and makes you more unreasonable. Your adding 'Hwang Woo-seok is also "revenge" and you violated 3RR. What is your excuse?--Appletrees (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, Go on this absurd argument till the last. I'm certain that you should be removed from the Wikiepdia community. --Amagase (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This another personal attack and threat tells who you are. That is pretty sad.--Appletrees (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are violations you have done here. WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:THREAT, No Personal Attack, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV. You must read the article again, especially the intro. "Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science." The latter two fields are distinctly separate even thought archeoology is a kind of social science, scholarly, it belongs to anthropology and history. Fujimura is an archaeologist, so that his case has been a good example of the archaeological fraud. Therefore, you should've provided a good rationale for your removal of the perfect example from the article. Rather, you insist on replacing it with Korean example in order to retaliate against my revert. You also placed the new addition at the top of the section, and the placement is very odd because if you really want to compromise with me, you should've made a group to Fujimura, the other archaeological case and the science case. You think Hwang Woo-seok case is more notable and I think Fujimura is more notable, so we disagree on the point. Besides, google search result is sometimes deceptive, and it is also funny that Japanese editors strongly disagreed to reflect the method at Dokdo and Sea of Japan. hmm.. double standard?

In addition, you blatantly lie that I erased your addition and don't want it to be included. Your threats and personal attacks here and at WP:AN3 truly degrade your reputation and credibility. In the current situation, you're speaking very nasty (quote from you). I don't wonder where you get the idea to request for arbitration before WP:ANI or "WP:RFC" that is two step forward, because I saw the same agenda at 2channel board. I'm the one who should Japanese editors's long time abuses and biased edits to arbitration. They talk that I'm the only one to defy against alterations by 2channel, but they're many here with socks/meats. The distinctive example is the poll at Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia(ウィキペディア)捏造に対抗せよ 21, and you can't deny the fact. If you want to get respected by others, please respect people first. You also should keep in mind that who has been altering information based on anti-sentiment and bias, so don't produce untruthful comments on me any more. You're not a neutral editor but prove yourself higly uncivil and non-Korean editor for Japanese sake. In my memory, I have not added anything to articles related to ancient history of Japan but restored your friends' blanking without discussion or rationale. Here is English Wikipedia, so unnecessary, POV and undue addition of Japanese names is not needed on articles. It is so clear that you're editing unfair in the rude manner.--Appletrees (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP warning[edit]

Personal nastiness aside, Amagase was right with his original version. Academic fraud and fraud in the technical, criminal sense are two different things. People like Fujimura belong in the former article, not here. This list should only contain people who can be documented to have been actually convicted of fraud in the sense of the law. Since this is a WP:BLP issue, stamping living individuals as criminals, I strongly warn editors against re-introducing names here that do not fulfil this criterion. Fut.Perf. 07:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of the most notable frauds[edit]

Blanking of the name of the Piltdown fraudster in the list was very ill-advised, in light of our own article on Fraud, which states "there have also been many fraudulent 'discoveries' in art, archaeology, and science." Blanking of one of the most notable examples of fraud ever in recorded history needs to have strong consensus (and one backed up by our own article) first. Falling back on an insistence of using a legal definition rather than relying on the actual English definition of the word is similarly lawyerly, untenable, and something that also requires consensus. We must not prevent our readers from obtaining the information they should expect to get from this article. Badagnani (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the Japanese fraudster "because there is no evidence of conviction" makes no sense, as, according to his article, the individual "confessed and apologized the same day in a press conference. He said that he had been "possessed by an uncontrollable urge". It appears that the insistence on conviction as evidence of fraud and criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia was concocted purely as a ploy for, at least in this instance, putting the brakes on the ubiquitous Korean-Japanese Wikipedia feud. However, if it's a notable, admitted fraud, it's a fraud, independent of said feud. Badagnani (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My first removal was just reverting to the status quo ante, before the rather disruptive dispute between Appletrees and Amagase. The Piltdown guy had never been in this list before. The Japanese guy confessed to forging archaeological artefacts, and he is therefore rightly covered at Archaeological forgery, but he neither confessed to nor was apparently ever investigated for "fraud" in the technical sense, which is what this article despite your objection is in fact primarily about (being in an article series on criminal law and all that.) As for the Piltdown guy, speculating on whether his behaviour would have constituted fraud in the technical sense is probably mute, since he died before his forgeries were uncovered; my own feeling is his inclusion here would therefore be OR, but since it's not a BLP issue, I'll leave that to local consensus to work out. Fut.Perf. 08:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please rename the "Real Estate Trends" to "Real Estate Fraud". (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please fix Hebrew interwiki[edit]

This is the right interwiki:הונאה —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC) It's NOT fixed yet.

discussion on fraudulent trading, definition of fraud and other company fraud or corporate fraud.[edit]

definition of fraud, fraudulent trading, corporate fraud and statutory definition of fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed Mark Zuckerberg[edit]

I removed Mark Zuckerberg as a list of famous "fraudsters." I don't know anything about the evidence of the case of what have you but the case against him was repeatedly dismissed without prejudice by the courts, which lead to Zuckerberg and Facebook to settle the case. Given that no judge has found criminal wrongdoing and since it's impossible to know if the settlement was given to make the bad publicity go away or because the complaint was actually valid it is nothing more than libel to label Zuckerberg a "notable fraudster."Seelum (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


why is it no organizat₵i฿₳₳on is immune to fraud ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Phony redirect[edit]

The phony and the fraudulent are not the same, although related. The redirect from phony here indicates that they are. Was the phony war a fraud? Lycurgus (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The National Fraud Authority[edit]

The length of the section on the National Fraud Authority is excessive. The whole thing could be replaced by the words "See National Fraud Authority". James500 (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unconscious Fraud (removed).[edit]

I removed the following statement from the Types of Fraud Section : There are also types of fraud which do not necessarily entail criminal activity, such as:Unconscious fraud, such as fraud committed by a hypnotised person or perhaps a medium in a trance
The reasons I did so are :

  • I am not convinced that there was any factual occurrence of such unconscious frauds
  • the reference mentioned was not sufficiently precise.

I leave the statement here for further amendment if you think it deserves it. --Pierre et Condat (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Equitable Fraud[edit]

The article lacks an explanation of equitable fraud (which would, in trust or company law, include actions in respect of fraud on the minority or on creditors). Here's a link ( on the subject. (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable fraudsters[edit]

What is the order of the list? I suggest to list them in alphabetical order and grouping them (bank fraudsters, medicare fraudsters, etc.) Konullu (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, it was more or less succesfully alphabetised until you came along in November and messed it up. In English, we alphabetise by surname. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Fraud and race[edit]

I would be interested to know if fraud ever overlaps with racism.

Hypothetical example:

A black man walks into a restaurant and orders a bowl of soup. He eats part of it and furtively adds a dead beetle. He calls a server over and demands the food for free, since there is a beetle in it. The (white) manager, who has been watching via CCTV, enters the room and refuses his request, adding that he has seen him adding the beetle. The black man becomes enraged and calls the man a racist for refusing to give him his food for free. He storms out. Can the restaurant manager have him arrested for fraud?

No POV here, I'm just curious. --Auric (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Elements of common law fraud in US[edit]

From the article: In the United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting fraud: Five of the nine listed items refer to the "plaintiff" (meaning the victim of the fraud).

However, the role of plaintiff is only applicable in civil law (tort), not criminal law. Since this article is about both criminal fraud and civil fraud (tort), I think this section should make clear that these are the elements of civil fraud. Both of the cited references are court decisions in cases of civil fraud, and say nothing about criminal fraud. So the sentence would read: In the United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting civil fraud:

Of course, this leaves criminal fraud undefined. So alternatively, and I think preferably, we should replace the word "plaintiff" with the word "victim" in items 5 through 9. This would encompass both civil and criminal fraud. That's under the assumption that the elements of fraud are the same, whether criminal or civil. But I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, and I haven't researched this. Can we have an opinion from someone who knows the law?

Omc (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This Article Needs Work as of December 2013[edit] (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC) U.S. Legal Professional 12/27/13 Fraud is a complex and varied concept with wide-ranging legal, financial, economic and social implications. This article on fraud makes a fair attempt at addressing many of the applicable concepts, but does so in a rather haphazard manner. It seems to me that this article could be substantially improved through a general restructuring of its hierarchy followed by an editing of the various sections to coordinate their purposes and content. Additionally, several sections of this article are totally lacking citations.

A quick review of the edit history shows that this article has not been actively managed over the past few months. In that light, I intend to charge ahead with implementation of my proposal if I don't hear any feedback from other uses in the next day or so.

I hope that my proposal and resultant changes are well taken by others, and that I don't step on anyone's toes. If any other users would like to share in this initial effort, let's try to coordinate our work.


"Defrauding people or organizations of money or valuables is the usual purpose of fraud" is just like saying "cooking food is the purpose of a cook". Especially since the verb defraud is mentioned earlier. The whole sentence that this begins with needs improving, e.g.: Fraud is primarily used to deprive people or organizations of money or valuables, however, it sometimes involves obtaining benefits without initially depriving anyone of money or valuables. As an example a drivers license obtained by way of false statements made in an application for the same, subsequently used for further fraud. GR8DAN (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)