This note examines the case of R v Hunter and argues that the offence of fraudulent trading requires the business itself to be used as an instrument of fraud. It is submitted that this offence is a financial offence found in the Company Act 2006 (with a corresponding offence in the Fraud Act 2006), because an integral aspect of a business is that it generates profits or at least its raison d’être is to generate profit. Many businesses run at a loss, but that is not the raison d’être of a business. If it is accepted that it is the business itself that needs to be the instrument of fraud, then there is no need to consider the elements of the incidental frauds (false representations, deception etc) used by that business to maintain itself as an instrument of fraud. It is also submitted that the decision in R v Hunter is erroneous to the extent it suggests that wilful blindness is sufficient mens rea.

本说明审查了R v Hunter案，并认为欺诈交易罪要求企业本身被用作欺诈工具。有人认为，这种罪行是2006 年《公司法》中规定的金融犯罪（在 2006年《欺诈法》中也有相应的罪行），因为企业的一个组成部分是它产生利润或至少其存在的理由是产生利润。许多企业亏本经营，但这不是存在的理由的一个企业。如果认为企业本身需要成为欺诈工具，则无需考虑该企业用来维持自身作为欺诈工具的附带欺诈的要素（虚假陈述、欺骗等）。欺诈罪。也有人认为，R v Hunter一案的判决是错误的，因为它暗示故意失明是足够的犯罪意图。