Can this be considered as a case of fraud?
<p>I recently got into an argument regarding whether submitting the following letter to an instituition could be regarded as a fraud: </p>

<hr>

<p>To Whomsover It May Concern</p>

<p>This is to certify that X is pursuing a Minor specialization in our department. </p>

<p>The courses offered by our department that have been taken by X are as follows:</p>

<p>A</p>

<p>B</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>Signed, Head of the Department</p>

<hr>

<p>Now, B and C are the courses that X has taken as a part of the Minor specialization and A is a course that X has taken additionally but is not a part of the minor specialization. Now, one point of view is that the statement about the list of courses provides a sufficient reason behind the first statement--in which case, there is nothing fraudulent. Another intepretation is that the statement about the list of courses implies that these courses were taken as a part of the minor--due to which the document is obviously a case of fraud. </p>

<p>I would like to know which interpretation is correct--whether one should assume that the second statement provides a sufficient reason for the first or that it provides a necessary reason for the first. </p>

<p>The second statement is completely independent of the first.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li><p>This is to certify that X is pursuing a Minor specialization in our department**.**[PERIOD]</p></li>
  <li><p>The courses offered by our department that have been taken by X are as follows:[...]</p></li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>As long as both of these statements are true, it is not deceptive, therefore not fraudulent. </p>

<p>A statement is only fraudulent if the misstatement is material to the person who receives it.</p>

<p>I can imagine a situation in which where someone actually has completed a minor and has actually taken the classes indicated, that the fact that one of them was actually taken for a purpose other than qualification for the minor would be material, although it is pretty esoteric.</p>

<p>This would be in the case of a transfer student in which the accepting institution only recognizes minor specializations with at least 18 credit hours of classes taken to qualify, but the sending institution recognizes minor specializations with 15 credit hours of classes to recognize a minor specialization, and the extra course is included to mislead the accepting institution to recognize a minor specialization that does not actually meet its rules for recognition. In that case, the misleading inclusion of the extra course would be material and it would therefore be fraudulent (although the injury suffered from the fraud would also sometimes be quite speculative, one might have to show that the transfer student would otherwise have to pay more tuition to graduate with this credential from the accepting institution, for example).</p>

<p>In almost any other case, the inclusion of the extra course would not be material and therefore, it would not be fraudulent.</p>

academia