The Government’s Burden to Prove a Fraud Case

 

Any fraud case requires the prosecution to show a defendant made an intentionally false statement or misrepresentation with the intended result of furthering their own interests or the interests of a third party. Thus, “guilty” knowledge is a prerequisite to any fraud conviction.

While, in some cases, prosecutors may have direct evidence of an individual’s intent to commit fraud, more often, this comes in the form of circumstantial evidence.

For example, in the trade secrets case mentioned above, the defendant’s act of telling employees to delete certain emails could be seen as evidence that he intended to cover up his past actions because he knew they were illegal. Computer fraud lawyer Nick Oberheiden explains:

Any time the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, it opens the door for a defendant to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence. Circumstantial evidence, by its nature, requires the fact finder to make an inference before reaching the ultimate conclusion. In most situations, the inference the prosecutor asks the judge or jury to make is not the only reasonable inference based on the facts.

For more information click here https://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-authorities-increasing-prosecution-computer-based-fraud-charges