@PVC: except that the “fraud” case has a different component to it. Namely that of abusing the good faith of others. Also fraud is not limited to a more elaborate form of theft, either: and false identities fall under this broader definition of fraud.
Consequentially I think that ruling should be seen simply as affirming that the fake neurosurgeon has abused the good faith of the plaintiff (the woman, presumably) and therefore should be punished accordingly. The verdict is a matter of case law, so it takes the closest well-defined legal concept as model on which to build; which in this case was deemed (by the court) to be fraud.
Bookmarks