Section 419 – Obtaining by False Pretence under Nigerian Law

Illustration showing obtaining loans by false pretence under Section 419 of Nigerian Law, featuring a businessman handing over money and a confused person, with icons of bank, cash, and loan

The offence of obtaining property by false pretence, popularly referred to as “419”, is one of the most widely recognized crimes in Nigeria. The term “419” has become a colloquial synonym for fraud due to its codification under Section 419 of the Criminal Code.

Legal Meaning of Obtaining by False Pretence.

Under section 419 of criminal code, the offence of obtaining property by false pretence involves situations where a person fraudulently obtains anything capable of being stolen by means of false representation with the intent to defraud. It also covers circumstances where an individual, through false pretence, induces someone else to deliver such property to a third party. No doubt this very offence has all in common with the following offences cheating offences in Nigeria, the Official corruption — Section 98 Of The Criminal Code and also Demanding Property with Menaces and Official Corruption Under Sections 406 and 98 of the Criminal Code

The Penal Code, applicable in Northern Nigeria, addresses this conduct under Section 320 (Cheating) and Section 321 (Cheating by Personation).

Moreover,Section 1 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act, 2006, defines obtaining by false pretence as:

“Dishonestly inducing another person to transfer property or money based on a false representation.”

Definition of “False Pretence”

A key element of the offence is false pretence. Both the Criminal Code (Section 418) and the Advance Fee Fraud Act (Section 20) provide similar definitions:

“Any representation, whether made deliberately or recklessly, by word, writing, or conduct, of a matter of fact or law, either past or present, which is false and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true.”

Essential Ingredients of the Offence of Obtaining By

1. There must be a false pretence.

2. The pretence must emanate from the accused

3. The pretence must be false in fact or law.

4. The accused must know the pretence is false or not believe it to be true.

5. The false pretence must induce the victim to part with the property.

6. The property must be capable of being stolen (as defined under Section 294 of the Criminal Code).

7. There must be an intent to defraud.

8. There must be a transfer of both possession and ownership. If only possession is transferred, the proper charge may be stealing rather than false pretence.

Judicial Authorities Cases on Offence of Obtaining By False Pretence

R v. Anijoloja (1936) 13 NLR 85.

The appellant falsely claimed to be a court clerk responsible for collecting money. The court held that intent to defraud is central, even if the money is later repaid. The offence lies in the false representation that induced the transfer.

Onwudiwe v. FGN (2006) 10 NWLR Pt. 88

The appellant falsely represented himself as an agent of Ivory Merchant Bank to obtain a bank draft worth ₦16.56 million. He deposited it into his personal account without delivering the promised foreign exchange. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, reinforcing the requirement for: false representation;Intent to defraud;Property capable of being stolen;Inducement leading to transfer of ownership.

Adeyemi v. C.O.P. (1961) All NLR 387

The accused obtained money by falsely claiming he could facilitate an appointment. The court emphasized that a variance between the false pretence charged and the evidence presented could be fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Laja v. IGP (1961) All NLR 715

The court affirmed that a loan obtained under false pretences constitutes the offence—even if the money is repaid. What matters is the intent and method of obtaining the loan, not whether repayment was made.

R v. Abuah (1961) All NLR 635

A legal practitioner misrepresented his authority to collect money for a client. The court held that the client was defrauded by being made to wait and negotiate under pressure, even if no permanent loss occurred.

R v. Aliyu (1959) NRNLR 67

The court held that a tradesman who misrepresents the quality or nature of his goods (e.g., falsely presenting diluted palm wine as undiluted) is guilty of false pretence if the customer is induced to pay based on the misrepresentation.

Impact of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, 2006

The Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud-Related Offences Act, 2006, has significantly expanded and altered the landscape of false pretence offences:

Territorial Limitation Removed: The Act applies regardless of whether the offence is committed within or outside Nigeria.

Ownership vs. Capability: Unlike Section 419, the new Act does not require proof that the property is capable of being stolen.

Special Note: Obtaining Loan by False Pretence.

Illustration showing obtaining loans by false pretence under Section 419 of Nigerian Law, featuring a businessman handing over money and a confused person, with icons of bank, cash, and loan

R v. Ogbonna (1941) 7 WACA 139 The court ruled that borrowing money under false pretences still constitutes an offence under Section 419 because the lender intends both possession and ownership to pass.

Ladipo v. IGP (1964) 2 All NLR Even where there’s an intent to repay, obtaining a loan under false pretence is criminal if ownership of the money has passed. The court also accepted that a pretence may be inferred from the conduct and circumstances, not only from direct words.

Welham v. D.P.P. (1961) AC 103 (UK Case with persuasive authority). The court held that economic or pecuniary loss is immaterial; what matters is the intent and falsehood, which must be known to the accused to be false.

IN SUMMARY:

The offence of obtaining by false pretence remains one of the most versatile and broadly interpreted financial crimes in Nigerian criminal law. It encompasses a wide range of fraudulent activities, from impersonation and misrepresentation to fraudulent loan acquisition. With the advent of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, prosecutors now have a more flexible framework to pursue such offences even where traditional requirements like proof of ownership or capability of theft are not met.

Legal practitioners and students must therefore be familiar not only with Section 419 of the Criminal Code but also with the broader provisions under the Advance Fee Fraud Act, 2006, to properly appreciate the dynamics of prosecuting or defending this offence in Nigerian courts.

Hope the Explanation and Note was helpful check out our next post on the categories for more. You Can Also search your area of interest on search Bar of this website by typing the required key topics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *