Fraud cases tend to be evidentially complex, but at their heart is a simple question: did the accused make a deliberately false statement to cause a particular outcome?  That simple question can often become lost, especially where the context is a relatively specialised one (for example, where the fraud is said to have occurred as part of a commercial transaction) and where there are large volumes of paperwork.  And if fraud is established, it is often far from clear who was involved in it.

Fraud cases also tend to take a very long time to go from the original report to a decision on prosecution, and longer still to reach court.  It is not uncommon for accused persons to do nothing during the intervening period; they would rather wait and see whether anything came of the allegation before instructing lawyers.  But the delay can provide an opportunity: to understand the allegation and, where appropriate, to make representations to the Crown as to why the case should go no further.  A successful challenge at the pre-prosecution stage can take away years of anxiety and business interruption, to say nothing of the savings in legal costs.