Criminal Conspiracy in Historical Common Law
The law of conspiracy is considerably more complex and uncertain than it need be because the statutory reform of the area largely contained in Part I of the criminal law Act 1977 was only partial. As a result, there are now two types of conspiracy – statutory conspiracies governed by the 1977 Act, and an important but limited range of common law conspiracies, which were expressly retained by the act, still governed by the old common law rules, (Tomlins & King, 1992). The most recent of the conspiracies is the conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to corrupt public morals and the conspiracy to outrage public decency; statutory conspiracy entails any agreement to commit a crime
According to Scheb & Scheb, (2011), the main aim for the reformation of this system was that it was to temporarily curb the pending review and reform the law relating to fraud, offensiveness and indecency as well as shaping the view of society as a whole. The law has now been reformed by the Fraud Act 2006 in which the government waits to see how the law operates so as to come up with relative changes or abolish common law conspiracy to defraud. The ministry of justice in June 2012 published a post legislative assessment of the fraud act 2006, Cmnd 8372 which was of the idea of the retention of conspiracy to fraud and so it may be a longtime before there is any change.
Major problems were experienced in the early years after the Act over how the preserved common law conspiracy to defraud dovetailed with the new statutory conspiracy to commit a crime as frequently, an agreement to defraud will necessarily involve an agreement to commit a substantive offence entailing dishonesty such as theft or the new offence of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. A typical example would be when A and B agree a scheme to dupe people into investing money in a non-existent company intending to disappear with the money subscribed. To do this would be to certainly agree to defraud the investors, but it will also be an agreement to commit the crime of fraud by false representation in benefit of an individual
Criminal conspiracy for current Missouri state statue
According to the Missouri revised statutes, a person is guilty of conspiracy with another person to commit an offense it he agrees with another person that one of them or both engage in a conduct that constitutes conspiracy. Conspiring also with a third party knowingly will also make the other two parties guilty of conspiracy whether the identities are known or not. Further conspiracy may be committed by a person conspiring to commit a number of offences that have the same results as conspiracy on the other hand no one shall be convicted if he prevented the accomplishment of the objectives of a conspiracy he was initially involved in, (Dressler, 2010). This is to say that in the case an individual in a conspiracy terminates his intentions and advises those with him not to continue with the...