兩術(shù)語(yǔ)之間的差異在于actual fraud (“事實(shí)欺詐”）具有事實(shí)上的故意，由此給他人帶來(lái)傷害，其也被稱為fraud in fact、positive fraud 以及 moral fraud[1]。相比之下，constructive fraud（“推定欺詐”）雖然無(wú)欺詐故意和虛假陳述，但后果卻與前者相同，且它常用作針對(duì)公共利益，其也稱為legal fraud、fraud in contemplation of law和equitable fraud,表明其是依據(jù)法律所推定成立的[2]。
[1 ] “A concealment or false representation through a statement or conduct that injures another who relies on it in acting. ” Cf. Bryan A. Gamer, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, at p. 671 , West Group (1999). “Fraud committed with the actual intent to deceive and thereby injure another. " Cf. Linda Picard Wood, J. D. , Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law，at p. 203, Merriam- Webster, Incorporated (1996 ).
[2] "Conduct viewed by a court as having the same effect as actual fraud though not involving any false representation of fact. ” Cf. James E. Clapp, Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law, at p. 193, Random House (2000). "Conduct that is considered fraud under the law despite the absence of an intent to deceive because it has the same consequences as an actual fraud would have and it is against public interests. " Cf. Linda Picard Wood, J. D, , Merriam Websters Dictionary of Law，at p. 203，Merriam- Webster, Incorporated (1996).
上一篇：Actual performance 和 Specific performance法律術(shù)語(yǔ)分析
下一篇：Action, Litigation, Suit, Proceedings 和 Procedure法律術(shù)語(yǔ)分析
微信公眾號(hào)搜索“譯員”關(guān)注我們，每天為您推送翻譯理論和技巧，外語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)及翻譯招聘信息。