Can a conspiracy involve unknown persons
<p>Specifically in the UK, regarding a conspiracy to defraud, is it necessary for the persons making an agreement to actually know each other, or is it sufficient for one to make an offer to any 2nd party to join them in carrying out the plan. </p>

<p>Assume that the fraud is arranged such that either of the parties will profit without needing to contact the other, depending on the choices made by the victim. If the fraud can be repeated without discovery, all conspirators are likely to benefit.</p>

<p>Along the lines of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hub-and-spoke_conspiracy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hub-and-spoke conspiracy</a>, is something similar recognised under UK law? Also, does 'cooperating' also cover 'enabling' without any specific agreement?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>tend to require only a more general knowledge among the spokes that
  there is a larger overall unlawful scheme involving other actors who
  are cooperating with the hub in carrying out the scheme</p>
</blockquote>

<h2>Conspiring anonymously is still conspiring</h2>
<p>It may come as a surprise but criminals are sometimes dishonest and sometimes they don’t use their real name. In fact this is so common that there is a word for it: ‘alias’.</p>
<p>In general the crime of conspiracy requires two or more people to plan and organise to engage in a joint criminal enterprise. They do have to communicate but that communication can be and usually is subtle, arms length and leaves very little, if any, evidence. For this reason, ‘conspiracy’ is generally a very hard crime to prove.</p>

united-kingdom fraud