Government plans to reform fraud law are 'retrogressive' and 'dangerous' and could result in the police being swamped by what are essentially civil grievances, leading fraud solicitors warned this week.

Brian Spiro, a partner at BCL Burton Copeland, who chaired the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association's (LCCSA) sub-committee on fraud law reform, said the proposals would make the law more confusing.


Home Office minister Baroness Scotland announced plans to create a single offence of fraud last week following a consultation period. She said a general offence of fraud could be committed by false representation, wrongfully failing to disclose information or by abuse of position.


Under the proposals, which will form the basis of a future fraud bill, she said the focus would be on a defender's intention rather than the result. She added that the current offence of conspiracy to defraud would be retained.


Mr Spiro said: 'Instead of clarifying the position, we are in danger of making things even more confused than ever, which is a retrogressive step. If you create a statutory offence properly, you should not need to keep the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud.'


He added: 'Moving away from looking at the effect of the crime to what is in the mind of the perpetrator is very dangerous - and a principle that could end up being applied to a whole range of criminal offences.'


Mr Spiro warned that the new offence could create problems for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. 'There is a risk that the police will increasingly be used by aggrieved complainants to chase what would have been civil offences. They do not have the resources for this.'


Debbie Price, a fraud law solicitor at City firm Kingsley Napley, said: 'My concern is that there should still be an element of deception for a fraud to have taken place. The law can be simplified but it should not be stripped so bare it encompasses general contractual behaviour, with the criminal courts being used to resolve what should really be dealt with in the civil courts.'


Louise Delahunty, a partner at City firm Peters & Peters who led the Law Society's response to the consultation, said there should be a detailed study of the present system before changes are introduced.