2

Or are they fraud? Are they just tolerated? Is it that no one really has the money/time to take them to court?

I am very interested in learning the rationale behind this.

Any jurisdiction applies but if you need a specific one we can use the US as an example.

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    I'm guessing because it's considered "entertainment" just like the lottery , gambling or betting. Unless they provide a guarantee that their prediction is correct, which, of course, none of them does.
    – Hilmar
    Commented Jun 14 at 22:17
  • 1
    Part of the reason for twisting and turning to say that it is "entertainment" is a First Amendment free exercise concern. The beliefs underpinning these things are basically religious beliefs and courts can't categorically hold that religious beliefs are incorrect. Also the assumption that no jurisdictions criminalize this is basically incorrect. Saudi Arabia executes a few people a year for this kind of thing. Many jurisdictions that aren't so religiously dominated make it a minor crime.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jun 14 at 22:27
  • Historical note, between 1951 and 2008, the UK had the Fraudulent Mediums Act, which banned 'spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers' with an intent to deceive for the purpose of monetary gain. Prior to that, their were prosecutions under the Witchcraft Act 1735 into the 1940s.
    – user1937198
    Commented Jun 15 at 1:57
  • >Also the assumption that no jurisdictions criminalize this is basically incorrect. Huh? Made where?
    – user17230
    Commented Jun 15 at 16:27
  • It's common for psychics to have a "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer somewhere, to avoid the problem.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jun 15 at 21:01

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

The elements of fraud at common law are:

  1. A representation
  2. Its falsity
  3. Its materiality
  4. The speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth
  5. The speaker's intent that it should be acted upon by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated
  6. The hearer's ignorance of its falsity
  7. The hearer's reliance on its truth
  8. The hearer's right to rely on its truth
  9. The hearer's consequent and proximate injury.

[Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012)][1]

So let's set up a hypothetical. Plaintiff calls Miss Cleo for a psychic reading. Miss Cleo says she sees Plaintiff in Las Vegas, winning big by betting on black. Plaintiff bets his life savings on black and is wiped out.

Were I representing Miss Cleo against Plaintiff's subsequent fraud claim, I'd argue that it fails for a couple of reasons: Element 2: Plaintiff cannot prove that it to be false that Miss Cleo "saw" him winning big by betting on black. Element 5: It is not reasonable for a person to act on a psychic's advice. Element 8: Plaintiff did not reasonably have the right to rely on a psychic's advice.

Improve this answer
5
  • 2
    Could you elaborate on the failure of element 8? Or, indeed, element 5? To simply assert it's not reasonable seems very much like begging the question, and it's not clear why a person wouldn't have a right to rely on whatever advice they like.
    – Tom
    Commented Jun 14 at 22:59
  • 2
    @Tom I think we have to start with the assumption that if the court's recognized people's right "to rely on whatever advice they like," this element wouldn't exist.
    – bdb484
    Commented Jun 15 at 4:50
  • Fair point, but I would like to know more about where the distinction is drawn. I think it's silly to rely on the advice of a "psychic," but other people rely on e.g. Alex Jones or Rudi Giuliani (to choose two names in the news lately); or Stephen M. Calk, who knowingly relied on Paul Manafort's misrepresentations of his own situation to justify millions in bank loans. I guess my point is that it does not seem clear what that standard means, and I was hoping you would elaborate beyond the trivial proof that there must be substance somewhere for it to warrant a bullet point.
    – Tom
    Commented Jun 15 at 5:40
  • Very interesting, thanks for giving such a detailed and grounded answer.
    – user17230
    Commented Jun 15 at 16:31
  • @Tom Alex Jones also thought (or at least claimed to think) that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, so he's hardly the standard we should use.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jun 15 at 20:59
-1

They lack the element of dishonesty

In the psychic believes that they are psychic, then they are acting honestly.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.