Specifically in the UK, regarding a conspiracy to defraud, is it necessary for the persons making an agreement to actually know each other, or is it sufficient for one to make an offer to any 2nd party to join them in carrying out the plan.

Assume that the fraud is arranged such that either of the parties will profit without needing to contact the other, depending on the choices made by the victim. If the fraud can be repeated without discovery, all conspirators are likely to benefit.

Along the lines of the Hub-and-spoke conspiracy, is something similar recognised under UK law? Also, does 'cooperating' also cover 'enabling' without any specific agreement?

tend to require only a more general knowledge among the spokes that there is a larger overall unlawful scheme involving other actors who are cooperating with the hub in carrying out the scheme


Conspiring anonymously is still conspiring

It may come as a surprise but criminals are sometimes dishonest and sometimes they don’t use their real name. In fact this is so common that there is a word for it: ‘alias’.

In general the crime of conspiracy requires two or more people to plan and organise to engage in a joint criminal enterprise. They do have to communicate but that communication can be and usually is subtle, arms length and leaves very little, if any, evidence. For this reason, ‘conspiracy’ is generally a very hard crime to prove.

  • True, but I was really meaning does the agreement have to be made explicitly, or can it be implicit? (not sure that terminology is right in this field) – Sean Houlihane Dec 7 '18 at 23:28
  • The last point is valuable, since I think it indirectly answers my question. – Sean Houlihane Dec 10 '18 at 9:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.