Icarus: Fraudulent Claim Against His Insurance Company After Setting Fire

926 Words2 Pages

Introduction
Icarus’ store is facing bankruptcy and so he plans to file a fraudulent claim against his insurance company after setting fire to his own store. In order to do so, he hires Prometheus, an arsonist. Icarus knows there is a risk in burning down a building so he instructs Prometheus to set fire at 2 a.m. expecting no one to be around. Prometheus asked his partner, Daedalus to help set fire. Unfortunately, Prometheus used too much gas creating such a large fire that the lumber yard next to the store lit up too. Within the lumber yard, chemicals exploded causing the fire to spread to the seniors’ home next to it. As a result of the fire that started at Icarus’ store and ended at the seniors’ home, five seniors and Daedalus died, and …show more content…

107) as an example, Icarus is to be charged with second degree murder contrary to s.229(c) of the Code and using the Magno (2006) case (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p. 107) as an example, Icarus is to be charged with conspiracy to commit arson contrary to s.465 of the Code.
The mens rea to commit this crime was established when Icarus decided to file a fraudulent claim by setting fire to his store. This fraudulent claim also establishes the unlawful object requirement under s.229(c). By hiring Prometheus and planning out the scheme with him, they have conspired. The actus reus of this conspiracy was established when they formed the agreement on committing arson (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p. 192). Their common goal is money in the sense that Icarus wanted money from his insurance company and Prometheus did this for money from Icarus.
As the principal offender (the person actually committing the act), Prometheus is to be charged with second degree murder and conspiracy to commit arson for reasons identical to Icarus with the exception of a fraudulent claim. …show more content…

Again, following the Roks (2011) case, there is no evidence or reason to conclude that Icarus was able to subjectively foresee that someone would die as a consequence (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p. 107) within the circumstances of this case. It is also more likely that the reasonable person is not able to foresee that the lumber yard would contain chemicals susceptive to explosion. Even if the reasonable person could foresee the chemicals, Crown Counsel would still not be able to prove that Icarus had the knowledge to foresee the unfortunate consequences. As to whether Icarus was present at the scene or not, it does not make him any less culpable due to the fact that he came up and deliberately planned to set fire with the final goal of filing a fraudulent insurance

More about Icarus: Fraudulent Claim Against His Insurance Company After Setting Fire

Open Document