Quote Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios View Post
@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.
You're missing the point though; that Fraud requires one to be defrauded of something. Fraud is a form of theft, but it uses a trick rather than a stick to take that thing from you. That means that the woman's consent to sexual congress can be "stolen", ergo it is a commodity which can be traded.

You're also wrong in that Fruad is not the closest model, there is a direct law which is applicable here, perjury, the bearing of false witness. That is a criminal offense for which he can be commissioned, and for which the "victim" can be compensated without making her consent part of a goods exchange.

Perjury is really badly ignored in the West (and hence in Israel, it would seem). It's applicable in all sorts of cases, including marital infidelity, for which it is never applied.