Sex Crimes, Sex Offenders Is there such a thing as rape by fraud?

[violatedone]

Jurisdiction

South Carolina

My ex and I last had sex on Oct 26th. This was 2 days after he got the notice that the CDV charges I had against him in 2016 had been completely expunged from his records. He then left on Nov 2nd with a woman he had an affair with in Feb. Thinking about it now, I believe the two of them had conspired all along to get me to drop the CDV charges, especially since he left 7 days after he was free and clear of them. When we were together, we were planning a wedding along with other things, but he has this woman believing we were not in a relationship since earlier in the summer. I now feel that I was used and thrown away to get the charges dropped and for a motorcycle that I bought that is still in my name. I just don't know if there is anything criminal that I might be able to report.

 

[adjusterjack]

Nope, no fraud.

There may be something you can do about the motorcycle if you want to post more details.

But the sex and the dropping of the CDV charges, well, that's just your foolishness for falling for it. Get over it and get on with your life. Be thankful he's gone.

 

[zddoodah]

Nope, no fraud.

. . .

But the sex and the dropping of the CDV charges, well, that's just your foolishness for falling for it. Get over it and get on with your life. Be thankful he's gone.

Concur. The law is never going to recognize otherwise consensual sex as unconsented rape solely because only person was keeping a secret from the other. That would result in some absurd consequences.

 

[violatedone]

I know what to do about the motorcycle and am in that process.

So, not even if the sex was very strongly coerced with texts to support?

 

[Highwayman]

So, not even if the sex was very strongly coerced with texts to support?

You can ask a hundred times and you;ll get the SAME answer. Understand?

 

[adjusterjack]

So, not even if the sex was very strongly coerced with texts to support?

No.

 

[zddoodah]

So, not even if the sex was very strongly coerced with texts to support?

Not really sure what this means, but it's certainly possible that the responses will change if you change the facts or provide us with new and additional facts.

Here are the facts as presented in your original post:

1. Sometime in 2016, you initiated "CDV charges" (whatever that means) against your ex-husband or ex-boyfriend or ex-whatever.

2. At some point between the initiation of the "CDV charges" and October 24, 2017, the charges were "completely expunged from his records."

3. In February 2017, your ex had an "affair" with some other woman.

4. On October 24, 2017, your ex received notice regarding the expungement.

5. On October 26, 2017, you and your ex had sex. It's worth pointing out that you did not tell us anything about what precipitated this sexual encounter.

6. On November 2, 2017, your ex "left . . . with [the] woman [with whom] he had [the] affair."

Everything in your original post is speculation, and none of these facts support a rape charge -- even if we assume your speculation is true. Moreover, nothing in your original post suggests any coercion occurred. As mentioned, if there are additional facts that you didn't previously share with us, then the responses you received may change.

 

[ElleMD]

Sex you regret =/= rape. If someone is "coercing" you to do something you don't want to do via text, stop reading their texts/block them/ delete without reading. If that person convinces you to go along with their wishes, you consented. Your consent doesn't magically evaporate because they left you for someone else afterward or were hoping you would take some sort of action after. If the charges were dropped prior to you sleeping with him, it doesn't even make sense that he only did so to get you to drop the charges.

 

[Joyce Short]

Yes, you were harmed in a case of sexual assault by deception. Problem is, most states will not prosecute. If you lived in Alabama it would be a class B misdemeanor. In Tennessee, it's a felony.

People on this thread who are telling you that you had "consensual sex" that you later regretted simply don't understand the meaning of consent. It's not unusual. Most of society does not understand the meaning of consent, and they're no different.

Often, people equate "consent" to "agreement." It's not. It's "Freely Given, Knowledgeable and Informed Agreement." You were duped, not knowledgeable and informed. Claiming you consented in your circumstance, is an oxymoron. You "assented" and the offender knew you were merely "assenting" (agreeing on the face of it) while "consenting" is required in all sexual conduct. You were tricked into thinking your assent was consent. He knew what he was doing, and it was his behavior, not yours, that makes what he did a crime.

If you have suffered severe emotional distress as a result of his behavior, try to locate an attorney who will bring a civil action. Problem is, in order for an attorney to take your case, they need to see a pay day at the end. That can only happen if the offender has assets.

The likelihood you'll be able to seek justice is unlikely, even though you were, indeed, sexually assaulted by this man. You have good reason to be extremely upset at what transpired. I wish there was something more that could be done for you. I hope that more penal codes will enact specific language to clearly define consent and identify that all non-consensual sex, which is the type of sex you had with him, is a sexual assault.

 

[zddoodah]

Yes, you were harmed in a case of sexual assault by deception.

What facts support this assertion? In answering this, please take a look at my post #7 in this thread and be sure to distinguish between facts and speculation.

If you lived in Alabama it would be a class B misdemeanor. In Tennessee, it's a felony.

Under what statutes?

People on this thread who are telling you that you had "consensual sex" that you later regretted simply don't understand the meaning of consent. It's not unusual. Most of society does not understand the meaning of consent, and they're no different.

If "most of society" thinks differently, then maybe you're the one who doesn't understand. That there may be facts which, if known to the OP, would have resulted in the OP not agreeing to the sex does not mean that there was no consent or that the consent wasn't freely given.

Consider the following hypothetical: David and Susan have been dating for a few months but have not had sex (more because of David than Susan). As a result, Susan is very horny. On a Friday night, she meets a woman and engages in sexual activity with that woman. On Saturday night, Susan and David go on a date, at the end of which, they finally have sex -- much to Susan's delight. As it happens, David is a homophobe. If he knew that Susan had engaged in lesbian sexual activity the night before, he would not have had sex with Susan. However, David did not discuss this with Susan, and Susan certainly did not bring it up. In other words, Susan withheld information from David which, if known to David, would have resulted in David not having sex with her. By your reasoning, Susan raped David. Fortunately, the law does not agree with you. If the law did agree with you, it would turn virtually all sexual encounters into rape.

If you have suffered severe emotional distress as a result of his behavior, try to locate an attorney who will bring a civil action.

A civil action for what? Based on the facts provided, no civil action is viable (regardless of the OP's ex's assets).

 

[mightymoose]

Yes, you were harmed in a case of sexual assault by deception. Problem is, most states will not prosecute. If you lived in Alabama it would be a class B misdemeanor. In Tennessee, it's a felony.

People on this thread who are telling you that you had "consensual sex" that you later regretted simply don't understand the meaning of consent. It's not unusual. Most of society does not understand the meaning of consent, and they're no different.

Often, people equate "consent" to "agreement." It's not. It's "Freely Given, Knowledgeable and Informed Agreement." You were duped, not knowledgeable and informed. Claiming you consented in your circumstance, is an oxymoron. You "assented" and the offender knew you were merely "assenting" (agreeing on the face of it) while "consenting" is required in all sexual conduct. You were tricked into thinking your assent was consent. He knew what he was doing, and it was his behavior, not yours, that makes what he did a crime.

If you have suffered severe emotional distress as a result of his behavior, try to locate an attorney who will bring a civil action. Problem is, in order for an attorney to take your case, they need to see a pay day at the end. That can only happen if the offender has assets.

The likelihood you'll be able to seek justice is unlikely, even though you were, indeed, sexually assaulted by this man. You have good reason to be extremely upset at what transpired. I wish there was something more that could be done for you. I hope that more penal codes will enact specific language to clearly define consent and identify that all non-consensual sex, which is the type of sex you had with him, is a sexual assault.

That is a bunch of gobbledygook.
There simply is no crime in the information provided.

 

[Joyce Short]

What facts support this assertion? In answering this, please take a look at my post #7 in this thread and be sure to distinguish between facts and speculation.



Under what statutes?



If "most of society" thinks differently, then maybe you're the one who doesn't understand. That there may be facts which, if known to the OP, would have resulted in the OP not agreeing to the sex does not mean that there was no consent or that the consent wasn't freely given.

Consider the following hypothetical: David and Susan have been dating for a few months but have not had sex (more because of David than Susan). As a result, Susan is very horny. On a Friday night, she meets a woman and engages in sexual activity with that woman. On Saturday night, Susan and David go on a date, at the end of which, they finally have sex -- much to Susan's delight. As it happens, David is a homophobe. If he knew that Susan had engaged in lesbian sexual activity the night before, he would not have had sex with Susan. However, David did not discuss this with Susan, and Susan certainly did not bring it up. In other words, Susan withheld information from David which, if known to David, would have resulted in David not having sex with her. By your reasoning, Susan raped David. Fortunately, the law does not agree with you. If the law did agree with you, it would turn virtually all sexual encounters into rape.



A civil action for what? Based on the facts provided, no civil action is viable (regardless of the OP's ex's assets).

 

[Joyce Short]

A civil action for emotional distress. That was pretty clear in my statement. Or perhaps you don't comprehend that people can sue for emotional distress? They can.

 

[Joyce Short]

That is a bunch of gobbledygook.
There simply is no crime in the information provided.

Incorrect. All non-consensual sex is a crime. Consent is "freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement." Sex by deception is a sexual assault. You simply don't get it.

 

[Joyce Short]

You seem to think you're the judge and jury. You're not. The judge is the arbiter of law. The jury is the arbiter of fact. You are neither, although you pretend to be. If this case were tried in a rape by fraud hearing, the jury would determine whether the accused manipulated or did not manipulate his way into sex with the victim. Manipulation is not "freely given agreement." When any device is used by an offender to undermine a person's self determination over their reproductive organs, the resultant sex is not "seduction," it's a sexual assault.

Unfortunately, as I previously stated, this case would not be likely to go to trial. It would be difficult to prove that the intent of the accused was nefarious, even though it may seem to be. People get hysterical about there being an onslaught of cases. In the many years that TN has had a rape by fraud law, only 2 cases have been tried. The concern about everyone going to jail is unfounded. The law would only lead to trial in egregious cases.

That being said, victims are no less harmed because their cases don't have the evidence needed to try them. Someone who is raped by fraud is injured at their core.

 

[Joyce Short]

A civil action for emotional distress. That was pretty clear in my statement. Or perhaps you don't comprehend that people can sue for emotional distress? They can.

 

[hrforme]

Incorrect. All non-consensual sex is a crime. Consent is "freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement." Sex by deception is a sexual assault. You simply don't get it.

As someone who has been sexually assaulted during a break-in by a stranger, thinking like this disgusts me. Allowing women to "take back" consent after the fact scares me for the future of my son. And for the future of women who are truly sexually assaulted. Just because he was a jerk doesn't mean it was a crime. He used her.....but she allowed it -- she knew about the CDV, she knew she got him off, she knew he had an affair prior in the same year, but yet she still chose to have sex with him..... She played his game and lost. Saying now that it wasn't consensual is ridiculous.

She wouldn't want me on her jury....

 

[Joyce Short]

As someone who has been sexually assaulted during a break-in by a stranger, thinking like this disgusts me. Allowing women to "take back" consent after the fact scares me for the future of my son. And for the future of women who are truly sexually assaulted. Just because he was a jerk doesn't mean it was a crime. He used her.....but she allowed it -- she knew about the CDV, she knew she got him off, she knew he had an affair prior in the same year, but yet she still chose to have sex with him..... She played his game and lost. Saying now that it wasn't consensual is ridiculous.

She wouldn't want me on her jury....

Sorry to hear of your misfortune. I've been sexually assaulted 3 times by different methods. You don't have a lock on rape.

Standardizing the rape statutes throughout the US to state: "Non-consensual sex is sexual assault: Consent is freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement," will address all types of rape and put and end to rape mentality, including violent rape. Your interest in reserving exclusive right to claim harm only for violent rape survivors, to the detriment of other rape survivors, will only serve to perpetuate rape mentality.

That being said, you should be aware that there are varying degrees of crimes. Violent rape is the most egregious and heinous form of rape. It's an "aggravated" form of rape. As such, the penalty is higher than all other forms of rape. But that does not excuse your disregard for people who have been sexually defiled through other means.

If you were violently robbed or robbed at gunpoint, the offender would be charged differently than if your home was broken into while you were not there. While your possessions were stolen by either means, the offender's punishment would not be the same. Penal code deals with all types of theft, by violent and by non-violent means.

Bernie Madoff's customers suffered terrible losses even though no gun was held to their head, and no violence occurred. They were defrauded of their assets, just like people can be defrauded of sex.

We don't tell people who had their possessions stolen in a break in that their loss is inconsequential because they did not suffer violence. It is grossly disrespectful to tell people who were sexually assaulted through alternative means that their loss was meaningless to you. Anyone who suffered defilement by any means deserves justice.

 

[ElleMD]

They had sex on October 26 and he broke up with her a week later. How is that rape or assault of any kind? Relationships end every day for a million reasons. There is always going to be a "last time". That last time doesn't suddenly become non-consensual.

Nor does having an affair make sex with the "other" partner rape. It makes him a lousy boyfriend, but the remedy isn't in court.

 

[Joyce Short]

How many times do I have to say, "This is not a case that could be tried." But you are making the assumption that his leaving had nothing to do with getting what he wanted from her. If that's what he was up to, he sexually assaulted her. If it was not, and he simply woke up one day and decided to change his mind, his behavior was not an assault. You and I will never know. And a prosecutor would have a difficult time proving he did anything nefarious. So again, this case would not be tried in a court of law.