Fraud

==By region==

===Asia===

====China====
In China, according to the [[Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China]], the '''Crime of Fraud''' ({{Lang-zh|s=诈骗罪|labels=no}}) refers to the "criminal act of deceiving and obtaining public or private property."<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=中华人民共和国刑法 – 中国人大网 |url=http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/npc/lfzt/rlys/2008-08/21/content_1882895.htm |access-date=2023-09-23 |website=The National People's Congress |archive-date=5 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220505105900/http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/npc/lfzt/rlys/2008-08/21/content_1882895.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

According to Article 266 of the Criminal Law:<ref name=":1" />

# Those who commit fraud involving a "relatively large amount" of public or private property shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or injunction control with community correction, and may additionally or solely be fined.
# If the amount involved is "large" or there are other serious circumstances, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined.
# If the amount involved is "particularly large" or there are other particularly serious circumstances, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of over ten years or life imprisonment and shall also be fined or have their property confiscated.

According to the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of the Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Fraud" ({{Lang-zh|s=关于办理诈骗刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释|labels=no}}) issued by the [[Supreme People's Court]] and the [[Supreme People's Procuratorate]] in 2011, for cases of fraud involving public or private property with a value ranging from 3,000 yuan to 30,000 yuan, from 30,000 yuan to 500,000 yuan, and over 500,000 yuan, they should be respectively deemed as "relatively large amount," "large amount," and "particularly large amount" as stipulated in Article 266 of the Criminal Law.<ref>{{Cite web |last=中华人民共和国最高人民法院 中华人民共和国最高人民检察院 The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China and the Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China |date=2011-03-01 |title=最高人民法院 最高人民检察院关于办理诈骗刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释 - 中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报 |url=http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/237391917228c62a82943bc9c9af1c.html |access-date=2023-09-23 |website=中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报 Gazette of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China |archive-date=8 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231108115704/http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/237391917228c62a82943bc9c9af1c.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

====India====

In India the criminal laws are enshrined in the [[Indian Penal Code]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/|title=Indian Penal Code|work=Indian Kanoon|access-date=2 March 2021|archive-date=12 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412061856/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/|url-status=live}}</ref> It is supplemented by the [[CrPC|Criminal Procedure Code]] and [[Indian Evidence Act]].

===Europe===
====United Kingdom====
In 2016 the estimated value lost through fraud in the UK was £193 billion a year.<ref>{{cite news|title=UK fraud costing '£193bn a year', new study suggests|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36379546|access-date=6 September 2017|agency=BBC|date=25 May 2016|archive-date=7 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170907035656/http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36379546|url-status=live}}</ref>

In January 2018 the ''[[Financial Times]]'' reported that the value of UK fraud hit a 15-year high of £2.11bn in 2017, according to a study. The article said that the accountancy firm BDO examined reported fraud cases worth more than £50,000 and found that the total number rose to 577 in 2017, compared with 212 in 2003. The study found that the average amount stolen in each incident rose to £3.66m, up from £1.5m in 2003.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ft.com/content/7fb80c16-f6c5-11e7-8715-e94187b3017e |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/7fb80c16-f6c5-11e7-8715-e94187b3017e |archive-date=10 December 2022|title=UK fraud hits 15-year high with value of £2bn|work=Financial Times|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

As at November 2017, fraud is the most common criminal offence in the UK according to a study by Crowe Clark Whitehill, Experian and the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.cityam.com/275550/fraud-costs-uk-economy-gbp190bn-incidents-soar |title=Fraud costs the UK economy £190bn as incidents soar &#124; City A.M. |access-date=13 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171113222159/http://www.cityam.com/275550/fraud-costs-uk-economy-gbp190bn-incidents-soar |archive-date=13 November 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The study suggests the UK loses over £190 billion per year to fraud. £190 billion is more than 9% of the UK's projected GDP for 2017 ($2,496 (£2,080) billion according to ''Statistics Times''.{{citation needed|date=October 2019}}) The estimate for fraud in the UK figure is more than the entire GDP of countries such as Romania, Qatar and Hungary.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.enterprisetimes.co.uk/2017/11/13/experian-claims-fraud-costs-uk-190-billion-per-year|title=Experian claims fraud costs GB£190 billion per year|work=Enterprise Times|date=13 November 2017|last1=Murphy|first1=Ian|access-date=13 November 2017|archive-date=13 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171113222422/https://www.enterprisetimes.co.uk/2017/11/13/experian-claims-fraud-costs-uk-190-billion-per-year/|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to another review by the UK anti-fraud charity [[Fraud Advisory Panel]] (FAP), business fraud accounted for £144bn, while fraud against individuals was estimated at £9.7bn. The FAP has been particularly critical of the support available from the police to victims of fraud in the UK outside of London. Although victims of fraud are generally referred to the UK's national fraud and cyber crime reporting centre, [[Action Fraud]], the FAP found that there was "little chance" that these crime reports would be followed up with any kind of substantive law enforcement action by UK authorities, according to the report.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Fraud-Review-Ten-Years-On-WEB.pdf|title=The Fraud Review Ten Years On|publisher=Fraud Advisory Panel|year=2016|access-date=14 July 2016|archive-date=21 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160821002419/https://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Fraud-Review-Ten-Years-On-WEB.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

In July 2016, it was reported that fraudulent activity levels in the UK increased in the 10 years leading up to 2016 from £52 billion to £193 bn. This figure would be a conservative estimate, since as the former commissioner of the [[City of London Police]], Adrian Leppard, has said, only 1 in 12 such crimes are actually reported.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/july/report-highlights-same-failings-in-fight-against-fraud-10-years-on/|title=Report highlights 'same failings' in fight against fraud 10 years on|website=www.out-law.com|access-date=18 September 2016|archive-date=26 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160826172204/http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/july/report-highlights-same-failings-in-fight-against-fraud-10-years-on/|url-status=live}}</ref> Donald Toon, director of the NCA's economic crime command, stated in July 2016: "The annual losses to the UK from fraud are estimated to be more than £190bn". Figures released in October 2015 from the Crime Survey of England and Wales found that there had been 5.1 million incidents of fraud in England and Wales in the previous year, affecting an estimated one in 12 adults and making it the most common form of crime.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36825605|title=UK fraud police release wanted list|date=18 July 2016|newspaper=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=18 September 2016|archive-date=28 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160928072518/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36825605|url-status=live}}</ref>

Also in July 2016, the [[Office for National Statistics]] (ONS) stated "Almost six million fraud and cyber crimes were committed last year in England and Wales and estimated there were two million computer misuse offences and 3.8 million fraud offences in the 12 months to the end of March 2016." Fraud affects one in ten people in the UK. According to the ONS, most fraud relates to bank account fraud. These figures are separate from the headline estimate that another 6.3 million crimes (distinct from fraud) were perpetrated in the UK against adults in the year to March 2016.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36854413|title=Nearly six million fraud and cyber crimes last year, ONS says|date=21 July 2016|newspaper=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=18 September 2016|archive-date=23 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160923120128/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36854413|url-status=live}}</ref>

Fraud was not included in a "Crime Harm Index" published by the [[Office for National Statistics]] in 2016. Michael Levi, professor of criminology at Cardiff University, remarked in August 2016 that it was "deeply regrettable" that fraud was being left out of the first index despite being the most common crime reported to police in the UK. Levi said "If you've got some categories that are excluded, they are automatically left out of the police's priorities."{{citation needed|reason=[[WP:DAILYMAIL]]|date=October 2019}} The Chief of the [[National Audit Office (United Kingdom)|National Audit Office]] (NAO), Sir Anyas Morse has also said "For too long, as a low-value but high-volume crime, online fraud has been overlooked by government, law enforcement and industry. It is now the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales and demands an urgent response."<ref>{{cite news|title=Online fraud costs public billions but is still not a police priority, says watchdog|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/online-costs-public-billions-but-is-still-not-a-police-priority-says-watchdog|access-date=6 September 2017|agency=Press Association|newspaper=The Guardian|date=30 June 2017|archive-date=7 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170907033658/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/online-costs-public-billions-but-is-still-not-a-police-priority-says-watchdog|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[HM Treasury]] issued guidance to [[central government|central government departments]] in January 2011 concerned with "Tackling Internal Fraud", concerned that economic pressures and potential staff redundancies at the time might lead those staff who "might be tempted" to commit fraud to make more of any opportunity which might arise, noting a possible shift in the balance between "the reward from fraud" and the risk of detection.<ref name=treasury>{{OGL-attribution|HM Treasury, [https://pdf4pro.com/view/tackling-internal-fraud-uk-government-web-archive-407b6.html Tackling Internal Fraud], published January 2011, archived version accessed 9 November 2022}}</ref> An aspect of the guidance was to equip staff to look out for "fraud indicators": clues or hints that an individual member of staff, team or area of activity might need "a closer look".<ref name=treasury />{{rp|Section 4.16}}

In 2022, the television program ''[[Scam Interceptors]]'' revealed that the majority of fraud in the United Kingdom was perpetrated from industrial-scale scamming [[call centre]]s in Asia.<ref>{{cite news |last=Dathan |first=Matt |date=10 April 2023 |title=Labour vows to bar foreign scam callers using UK numbers |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-vows-to-bar-foreign-scam-callers-using-uk-numbers-ckbmb9sfb |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=8 May 2023 |archive-date=9 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230509180515/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-vows-to-bar-foreign-scam-callers-using-uk-numbers-ckbmb9sfb |url-status=live }}</ref>

=====England, Wales, and Northern Ireland=====
Since 2007, fraud in [[England and Wales]] and [[Northern Ireland]] has been covered by the [[Fraud Act 2006]]. The Act was given [[royal assent]] on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007.<ref>{{cite legislation UK |si=The Fraud Act 2006 (Commencement) Order 2006 |type=si |year=2006 |number=3200 |date=29 November 2006}}</ref>

The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes—fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud is liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to six months on [[summary conviction]], or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on [[indictment]]. This Act largely replaces the laws relating to obtaining property by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage and other offences that were created under the [[Theft Act 1978]].

======Serious Fraud Office======
{{Main|Serious Fraud Office (United Kingdom)|Cifas}}
The [[Serious Fraud Office (United Kingdom)|Serious Fraud Office]] is an arm of the Government of the United Kingdom, accountable to the [[Attorney General for England and Wales]].

The [[National Fraud Authority]] (NFA) was, until 2014, a government agency coordinating the counter-fraud response in the UK.

[[Cifas]] is a British fraud prevention service, a not-for-profit membership organization for all sectors that enables organizations to share and access fraud data using their databases. Cifas is dedicated to the prevention of fraud, including internal fraud by staff, and the identification of financial and related crime.

=====Scotland=====
In [[Scots law]], fraud is covered under the common law and a number of statutory offences. The main fraud offences are common law fraud, uttering, embezzlement, and statutory fraud. The Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland.

===North America===

====Canada====
Section 380(1) of the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]] provides the general definition for fraud in Canada:

{{blockquote|
'''380'''. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

:(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
:(b) is guilty
::(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
::(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction, where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-177.html#h-105 |title=Criminal Code, Section 380 |publisher=Laws-lois.justice.gc.ca |access-date=2013-12-05 |archive-date=7 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151007033324/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-177.html#h-105 |url-status=live }}</ref>
|}}

In addition to the penalties outlined above, the court can also issue a prohibition order under s. 380.2 (preventing a person from "seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves having authority over the real property, money or valuable security of another person"). It can also make a restitution order under s. 380.3.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-178.html |title=Criminal Code, Sections 380.2 - 380.3 |publisher=Laws-lois.justice.gc.ca |access-date=5 December 2013 |archive-date=17 January 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140117000913/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-178.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The Canadian courts have held that the offence consists of two distinct elements:

:* A prohibited act of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means. In the absence of deceit or falsehood, the courts will look objectively for a "dishonest act"; and
:* The deprivation must be caused by the prohibited act, and deprivation must relate to property, money, valuable security, or any service.<ref>{{cite web|title = The Law of Fraud and White Collar Crime in Canada|url = http://www.blakes.com/pdf/Calgary/white_collar/Tab_4The_Law_of_Fraud_and_White_Collar_Crime_in_Canada.pdf|author = Tony Wong|publisher = [[Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP]]|access-date = 22 April 2012|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120813020142/http://www.blakes.com/pdf/Calgary/white_collar/Tab_4The_Law_of_Fraud_and_White_Collar_Crime_in_Canada.pdf|archive-date = 13 August 2012|url-status = dead}}</ref>

The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] has held that deprivation is satisfied on proof of detriment, prejudice or risk of prejudice; it is not essential that there be actual loss.<ref>''R. v. Olan et al.'', [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175. {{lexum-scc2|1978|2|1175}}</ref> Deprivation of [[confidential information]], in the nature of a [[trade secret]] or copyrighted material that has commercial value, has also been held to fall within the scope of the offence.<ref>''R. v. Stewart'', [1988] 1 S.C.R. 963. {{lexum-scc2|1988|1|963}}</ref>

====United States====
{{See also|United States free speech exceptions}}

=====Criminal fraud=====
The proof requirements for criminal fraud charges in the United States are essentially the same as the requirements for other crimes: guilt must be proved beyond a [[reasonable doubt]]. Throughout the United States fraud charges can be misdemeanours or felonies depending on the amount of loss involved. High value fraud can also trigger additional penalties. For example, in California, losses of $500,000 or more will result in an extra two, three, or five years in prison in addition to the regular penalty for the fraud.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=186.11 |title=California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 186.11 |author=<!--Not stated--> |website=California Legislative Information |publisher=California State Legislature |access-date=9 August 2017 |quote=If the pattern of related felony conduct involves the taking of, or results in the loss by another person or entity of, more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), the additional term of punishment shall be two, three, or five years in the state prison. |archive-date=10 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170810013423/http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=186.11 |url-status=live }}</ref>

The U.S. government's 2006 fraud review concluded that fraud is a significantly under-reported crime, and while various agencies and organizations were attempting to tackle the issue, greater co-operation was needed to achieve a real impact in the public sector.<ref>{{cite web|title=Financial Crimes Report 2006|url=https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2006|publisher=Federal Bureau of Investigation|access-date=6 September 2017|archive-date=10 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170710160145/https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2006|url-status=live}}</ref> The scale of the problem pointed to the need for a small but high-powered body to bring together the numerous counter-fraud initiatives that existed.

===== Civil fraud =====

Although elements may vary by jurisdiction and the specific allegations made by a plaintiff who files a lawsuit that alleged fraud, typical elements of a fraud case in the United States are that:
# Somebody [[Misrepresentation|misrepresents]] a [[material fact]] in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person
# The other person relies upon the misrepresentation
# The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation

To establish a civil claim of fraud, most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element of a fraud claim be pleaded with particularity and be proved by a [[preponderance of the evidence]],<ref>See, e.g., {{cite web|title=Halpert v. Rosenthal, 267 A. 2d 730 (R.I. 1970)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5527501886831013047|website=Google Scholar|access-date=6 September 2017}}</ref> meaning that it is more likely than not that the fraud occurred. Some jurisdictions impose a higher evidentiary standard, such as Washington State's requirement that the elements of fraud be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence),<ref>{{cite web|title=WPI 160.02 Fraud—Burden of Proof|url=https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd1eacde10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)|website=Washington Pattern Jury Instructions - Civil|publisher=West|access-date=24 May 2017|archive-date=6 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170806221312/https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd1eacde10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)|url-status=live}}</ref> or Pennsylvania's requirement that common law fraud be proved by clear and convincing evidence.<ref>{{cite web|title=Boehm v. Riversource Life Insurance Co., 2015 PA Super 120, 117 A.3d 308 (Pa. Super. 2015)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17142924722317996914|website=Google Scholar|access-date=24 May 2017}}</ref>

The measure of damages in fraud cases is normally computed using one of two rules:<ref>{{cite news|last1=Chang|first1=Stanley Y.|title=The CPA Journal Online|url=http://archives.cpajournal.com/old/15410303.htm|access-date=6 September 2017|date=April 1994|archive-date=7 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170907032921/http://archives.cpajournal.com/old/15410303.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>
* The "benefit of bargain" rule, which allows for recovery of damages in the amount of the difference between the value of the property had it been as represented and its actual value;
* Out-of-pocket loss, which allows for the recovery of damages in the amount of the difference between the value of what was given and the value of what was received.
[[Special damages]] may be allowed if shown to have been [[Proximate cause|proximately caused]] by defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with [[Asset specificity|specificity]].

Some jurisdictions may permit a plaintiff in a fraud case to seek [[Punitive damages|punitive]] or exemplary damages.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Koerner|first1=Theodore G.|title=Contracts: Damages: Punitive Damages Awarded for Breach Accompanied by Fraudulent Act|journal=Michigan Law Journal|date=January 1958|volume=56|issue=3|pages=448–450|jstor=1286082|doi=10.2307/1286082|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol56/iss3/11|access-date=2 January 2021|archive-date=22 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122231931/https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol56/iss3/11/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=====Anti-fraud provisioning=====

Beyond legislation directed at preventing or punishing fraud, some governmental and non-governmental organizations engage in anti-fraud efforts.

Between 1911 and 1933, 47 states adopted the so-called [[Blue sky law|Blue Sky Laws]] status.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Speech by SEC Staff: remarks at the F. Hodge O'Neal Corporate and securities Law symposium |url=https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch022103smc.htm |website=sec.gov |date=21 February 2003 |access-date=28 August 2017 |archive-date=8 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708091409/https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch022103smc.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
These laws were enacted and enforced at the state level and regulated the offering and sale of [[security (finance)|securities]] to protect the public from fraud. Though the specific provisions of these laws varied among states, they all required the registration of all securities offerings and sales, as well as of every U.S. [[stockbroker]] and brokerage firm.<ref name="bluesky">{{cite web |url=http://www.seclaw.com/bluesky.htm |title=Blue Sky Laws |publisher=Seclaw.com |date=7 July 2007 |access-date=5 December 2013 |archive-date=9 December 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171209204422/http://www.seclaw.com/bluesky.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> However, these Blue Sky laws were generally found to be ineffective.

To increase public trust in the capital markets the [[President of the United States]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], established the [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]] (SEC).<ref>{{cite web|title=Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882–1945)|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=erpn-fdr|website=gwu.edu|access-date=8 November 2023|archive-date=14 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210514045636/https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/mep/displaydoc.cfm?docid=erpn-fdr|url-status=live}}</ref> The main reason for the creation of the SEC was to regulate the [[stock market]] and prevent [[corporate abuses]] relating to the offering and sale of securities and corporate reporting. The SEC was given the power to license and regulate stock exchanges, the companies whose securities traded on them, and the brokers and dealers who conducted the trading.<ref>{{cite web|title=Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")|url=http://learn.advfn.com/index.php?title=Stock_Market_Regulation|website=learn.advfn.com|access-date=8 November 2023|archive-date=4 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230604013057/https://learn.advfn.com/index.php?title=Stock_Market_Regulation|url-status=live}}</ref>