Dishonesty is a basic feature of most offences defined in criminal law, such as fraud, which relates to the illicit acquisition, conversion, or disposal of property, tangible or intangible.
[2] The position as a result is that the court must form a view of what the defendant's belief was of the relevant facts (but it is no longer necessary to consider whether the person concerned believed that what he did was dishonest at the time).
"[3] In relation to bribery, Baker argues: "Like the test of dishonesty for property offences, the normativity of the way the function or activity is performed is measured against contemporary British norms.
If the conduct is against normal business practice and is generally regarded as improper, then it will be deemed as such by following a reasonable person assessment of what to expect in the UK.
[5] It is essential that there is a direct cause and effect between a debtor's deliberate action and the insolvency; mere poor management or accidental losses are not grounds for conviction.
Taking into account judicial practice, the best defense is to claim a lack of deliberate intent, and demonstrate that the actions were reasonable at the time and not intended to cause insolvency.
[7] Explicit fraud and embezzlement, involving concealment or presenting fraudulent liabilities, are defined separately, as are the less serious deceitfulness and violation by a debtor.
The debtor was ordered to pay FIM 1.8 million in damages due to reckless lending that had led to a bankruptcy of the bank.
However, the debtor kept multiple credit accounts overdrawn by withdrawing large sums of cash, which he claimed were for daily expenses and frequent travel abroad.