Can anyone explain to me the legal meaning of the word aggrsvated and how it can be used. What constitutes aggravated fraud?
Well, if you were to rip me off, I’d become very agrevated. Not to mention agitated, annoyed, angry, and asshollic.
:…as you would indeed have every right to be.
Seriously though it sounds to me like Fraud with Violence or something. How can that be
An aggrevator is some other aspect of the act committed that makes the underlying act worse.
In a DUI/DWI for example, the two critical elements are; the person was operating the vehicle, and the person was drunk/impaired/intoxicated - whatever.
When the DA can prove these two things, that gets a conviction and a (mandatory) minimum sentence.
But - if certain other elements are also present (aggrevators) sentencing guidelines suggest (or mandate) stronger sentences. Some common aggrevators in DWIs are, excessive blood alcohol level, vehicular accident, property damage, death or injury, that kind of stuff.
I’ve heard of aggrevated assault, and I assume this means using a weapon during the assault. But aggregated fraud? Never heard of that.
Oh yeah, my disclaimer. IANAL. But I play one on my computer at night. Mrs. Tonk IS a lawyer and she can’t type.
Interesting, that is as I suspected.
I still wonder however how the term can be applied to a crime in which the suspect allegedly hacked a bank account and transferred funds to another account.
Where are the aggressors there?
The only caveat here is that the word aggrevated may have been incorrectly translated from the finnish. What other similar term could be applied to Fraud?
Thinking about it is the fact that the transfer was performed without permission an agressor to the crime of fradulently accesing the account?
While it’s true that the term aggravator is applied to factors that can affect sentencing guidelines, the term aggravated in the title of a crime suggests a different crime, with additional elements.
For example, in Virginia, Malicious wounding is a crime, for which the elements are: A person maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts or wounds any other person (1) with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill (2).
Aggravated malicious wounding is a crime as well. The elements are: A person maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts or wounds any other person (1), with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill (2), and the victim is thereby severely injured and is caused to suffer permanent and significant physical impairment (3).
Malicious wounding is thus a lesser-included offense of aggravated malicious wounding.
- Rick
Also, it can be an aggravating factor that the victim was elderly, or otherwise particularly vulnerable, which could definitely occur in a fraud case.
It seems to me that what you really need to know is not what “aggravated” means but what “aggravated fraud” means. As Rick pointed out, the crime of “X” is a different one than the crime of “Aggravated X,” and the elements that will serve to make a particular crime “aggravated” will differ based on what crime you’re talking about.
The definition of “aggravated fraud” will be found in the statute books for whatever jurisdiction you happen to be in, and you should be able to look it up fairly easily. If you have problems for any reason, e-mail me and tell me what state or province you’re in and I’ll step across the hall, get the definition, and e-mail it to you. Note that I’m not offering legal advise of any kind, and frankly I would not be able to do anything else to help you, but if you want the statutory definition and don’t have it, I can get it for you with a minimum of effort.
Perhaps it is a misinterpretation of “actionable fraud?”
Actionable Fraud: Deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal right. A false representation made with an intention to deceive; such may be committed by stating what is known to be fase or by professing knowledge of the truth of a statement which is fase, but in either case, the essential ingredient is a falsehood uttered with intent to decieve. To constitute “actionable fraud,” it must appear that defendant made a material representation; that it was false; that when he made it he knew it was false, or made it recklessly without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; that he mede it with intention that it should be acted on by plaintiff; that plaintiff acted with reliance on it; and that plaintiff thereby suffered injury. Essential elements are representation, falsity, scienter, deception, reliance and injury. –Black’s Law Dictionary
I’m no lawyer, but the above looks like ripe territory for things like trojan horses and deceptively acquiring credit card numbers or account numbers through trojan horses. Is this a little closer?
SOFA, “actionable” at law means something is subject to being sued over, without the court just throwing it out. If you can file a legitimate legal “action” over something, then that something is said to be “actionable.” So “actionable fraud” is really just “fraud in the eyes of the law,” and what you have posted is the definition of that.
“Aggravated” is almost always a criminal term, which is why I assume that here we are talking about a crime. “Aggravated fraud” and “actionable fraud” are therefore very different – one is a particular crime, defined by the statutes of a particular jurisdiction, and the other is, well, just plain old fraud, civil or criminal, as defined by Black’s.
Actually, I think that an assault where a weapon is involved is called ‘Assault With a Deadly Weapon.’ IANAL, nor do I play one at night or anything, but I think that aggrivated assault is an assault that is premeditated, rather than just a spur-of-the-moment action like assaults usually are. Like everyone else, I’m not sure what aggrivating factors would be for a fraud case.
I would expect aggravating circumstances for fraud to include stealing unusually large amounts, swindling “widows and orphans,” etc.
Thanks for the clarification there, Jodi. I happened to see it and thought perhaps the two terms could have been transposed in translation. Dahmna didn’t seem entirely certain that “aggravated” was in fact the proper term.
Thanks for all the info folks and special thanks to Jodi for the offer of help.
I should make clear that this case is being brought to trial in Finland which is where the funds resided but not where the crime was alledged to have been committed.It is something of a minefield.
I have confirmed that Aggravated Fraud is the correct translation for the charge.
Im really only trying to find out why or how the “agravated” part comes into play.The amount of money being discussed here is approx $100,000.
As Jodi points out, the amount involved has nothing to do as to whether an action or crime is “aggravated.” (Please, kids, let’s spell this word right. Also, “alleged” is spelled that way.) It’s the circumstances surrounding the events that make an action aggravated.
I think the fraud that the tobacco companies committed can fall into an “aggravated fraud,” if there is such a wrong defined in the statutes or case law of any state or federal govt. It is obvious that the jury thought the fraud was so egregious that they awarded a corresponding egregious judgment.
Okay and thank you,
Can you see any aggrevating factors in the crime as desribed?
A brief recap,
Bank Accout fradulently accessed via WAP.
Transfer of funds into 3rd party account.
Whey is thi snot just simple Fraud?
As previously pointed out, you’d have to know the Finnish laws. Perhaps any fraud through a bank account is “aggravated fraud” in Finland. Now I’m finished.
Fraud indicates misrepresentation. If I cash your check or I sell you a product I do not own, I have committed fraud. (Legal terms may vary by jurisdiction, of course.)
If, however, I use an electronic method to move funds out of your account, I have been fraudulent in that I misrepresented myself as you or your designated agent, but, having broken the electronic code, my action is more akin to robbery. Once I have the code, there is no way for a person to stop me from “violently” taking your funds.
In the case of the check there is at least the hope that a more observant clerk would not accept the check because my ID did not match yours. For property I do not own, a more thorough examination to the title of the property would indicate that I did not own it.
In the case of the electronic funds transfer, my securing your key gives me unlimited access to your property.