Top 10 similar words or synonyms for dishonest

unscrupulous    0.794201

nefarious    0.787451

unethical    0.750393

dishonesty    0.725353

wrongdoer    0.724772

fraudster    0.719166

misused    0.716856

frauds    0.714132

perpetrating    0.709584

knowingly    0.702677

Top 30 analogous words or synonyms for dishonest

Article Example
Dishonest assistance Whether a breach of trust should be required at all has been queried by a commentator, since no breach is required for the analogous tort of interference with contractual relations and if the fiduciary reasonably relies on the probity and competence of the dishonest assistant, the claimant would be left with no remedy.
Dishonest assistance Dishonest assistance, or knowing assistance, is a type of third party liability under English trust law. It is usually seen as one of two liabilities established in "Barnes v Addy," the other one being knowing receipt. To be liable for dishonest assistance, there must be a breach of trust or fiduciary duty by someone other than the defendant, the defendant must have helped that person in the breach, and the defendant must have a dishonest state of mind. The liability itself is well established, but the mental element of dishonesty is subject to considerable controversy which sprang from the House of Lords case "Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley".
Dishonest assistance Another debate was regarding the type of knowledge that would suffice to impose liability. Peter Gibson J in "Baden v Société Générale" identified 5 categories of knowledge which was subject to much debate and led the courts into "tortuous convolutions".
Dishonest assistance Previously, it was thought that the dishonest assistant would not be liable unless the defaulting trustee was also dishonest or fraudulent, but "Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan" confirmed that there is no such requirement in English law. However, the requirement of dishonest or fraudulent design on the part of the defaulting fiduciary / trustee is still part of the law in Australia.
Dishonest assistance Lord Millett delivered a dissenting judgment, maintaining that "Royal Brunei" decided that the test of dishonesty is objective, although account must be taken of subjective considerations such as the defendant’s experience and intelligence and his actual state of knowledge at the relevant time. But it is not necessary that he should actually have appreciated that he was acting dishonestly; it is sufficient that he was. The question is whether an honest person would appreciate that what he was doing was wrong or improper, not whether the defendant himself actually appreciated this. His Lordship gave 3 reasons for this: