Summary

Fraud is one of the most important categories of offences against all types of property (Chapter 13, Division 2 of the Penal Code). In contrast to the approach taken in the previous Criminal Code, legislators have opted, in addition to the general offence of fraud (section 209 Penal Code), to include several additional, specific forms of fraud (sections 210-213 Penal Code) in the current law. These are specific provisions with respect to the general offence, and therefore a single act can only constitute either a specific form of fraud or the general offence of fraud. In practice, the general offence is most common, and this has been the source of a number of legal issues that have been addressed in cassation proceedings. Criminal cases involving fraud have become more complex, and the courts have had to address a number of issues regarding definition of the elements that constitute fraud, which were not relevant before. These primarily involve determining the existence of proprietary benefit and damage, but there have also been difficulties with other elements of the offence of fraud, such as deceit.

In this article, the author focuses on new trends in Estonian court practice relating to the general offence of fraud as provided for in section 209 of the Penal Code, through an examination of the practice of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. The primary goal of this exercise is to analyse and generalise court practice relating to the general offence of fraud, for which its individual elements are examined separately, and focus is placed on deceit and proprietary benefit.