Advanced Search

CPS Public Consultations

We want to hear your views about our prosecution policy and so we conduct consultations to help inform our policy making.

Visit the consultations page to view the current and previous consultations

Obtaining cloned cards

Date Updated: January 2012

Title: Theft

Offence: Obtaining property by deception - credit cards

Legislation: S15 Theft Act 1968

Commencement Date: Repealed as from 15.1.2007  by the FRAUD ACT 2006 , however under transitional provisions this section  is still applicable to  offences where the offence was partly committed before 15th January 2007- see section14(2) and schedule 2 of  the Fraud  Act for detailed provisions.    

Mode of Trial: Either Way

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 10 years

Culpability & Harm

  • Substantial amounts involved
  • Substantial loss sustained
  • Planning
  • Professionalism
  • Offending carried out over a long period
  • Offender acting with others
  • Offender recruited others
  • Offender prime mover
  • Motivated by greed or desire to live beyond his or her means

Aggravating & Mitigating Factors

None

Relevant Sentencing Guidelines (If Any)

Guideline Breach of Trust Case

R v CLARK [1998] 2 Cr.App.R. (S.) 95
Save in very exceptional circumstances, where a person in a position of trust, for example an accountant, a solicitor, a bank employee or a postman has used his trusted and privileged position to defraud his partners, clients employers or the general public of sizeable sums of money immediate imprisonment is inevitable unless there are exceptional circumstances or the amount of money involved is very small. The amount defrauded is an important factor and the following guidelines apply where the sums involved are:

  • Less than £17,500         up to 21 months imprisonment
  • £17,500 to £100,000      2-3 years
  • £100,000 to £250,000    3-4 years
  • £250,000 to £1 million   5-9 years
  • £1 million or more          10 years +

R. V KEFFORD (MARK JAMES) [2002] 2 CR. APP. R. (S.) 106
For economic crimes, alternative sentences to imprisonment could be appropriate punishment.
K was employed by a building society and opened false accounts into which he made windfall payments and then withdrew money as needed. The amount of £11,120 was taken. When interviewed the appellant immediately made full and frank confessions. He had no previous convictions. After the discovery of the offences the appellant sold his home so as to be able to repay the sums he had taken. On appeal his sentence was reduced from 12 months imprisonment to 4 months. The court commented that even in the present circumstances, in cases involving breach of trust where the sum involved was not small, the guidance in Clarke was still applicable even where it was a first offence, however, a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed when necessary and only for as long as was necessary in view of the overcrowded prison system. For economic crimes, especially where the offender was of previous good character, alternative sentences to imprisonment could be appropriate punishment.

Relevant Sentencing Case Law

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE NO. 73 OF 2003 (Umaharan Ranganathan) [2004] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 62
Pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud banks and financial institutions. Over a ten month period the defendant cloned credit and loyalty cards and obtained £125K. Sophisticated offence. 3 years. Tariff 4 years.

R v AMEEN DIN AND OTHERS [2005] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 40
Pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud. Over a period of more than two years, the defendant and others conspired to defraud banks and other financial institutions by making and using cloned and skimmed credit and debit cards in each others premises. £250K obtained and attempted to obtain a further £250K. 21 months to 4 years.

CHIRILA AND OTHERS [2005] 1 CR.APP.R.(S) 93
Cloned cards, sophisticated nature of operation, deterrence required
6 years imprisonment was upheld on appeal where the appellant had been found guilty of conspiring to defraud various banks by withdrawing money from accounts by way of hi-tech equipment. A total of £24,460 loss had been incurred to 55 customers. It was held that this was the sort of fraud which undermined public confidence in the banking system and hence a deterrent element in the sentence was required.

Ancillary Orders:

  • Compensation Orders: 5-411
  • Deprivation Orders: 5-439
  • Disqualification from acting as a Company Director: 5-851
  • Financial Reporting Orders: 5-886c

Consider Also:

  • POCA

Top of page

Return to Sentencing manual