Constructive fraud differs from actual fraud in that it does not require intent to deceive.

• A. It requires intent to deceive
• B. It requires misrepresentation
• C. It involves criminal intent
• D. It does not require intent to deceive

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that intent matters differently for the two types of fraud. Actual fraud requires a deliberate plan to deceive someone. Constructive fraud, on the other hand, can be treated as fraudulent conduct even if there wasn’t an intent to deceive; the law can infer deceit from the act, omission, or circumstances and hold the person liable nonetheless.

That’s why the statement underscores the defining feature: you don’t need to show intent to deceive for constructive fraud. It can arise from negligent or reckless misrepresentation, concealment, or other conduct that the law deems fraudulent because of its impact and the duty involved, not because the person meant to lie.

The other ideas don’t capture the distinction as accurately. While misrepresentation can be involved in both, the crucial difference is the absence of a required deceptive intent in constructive fraud, whereas actual fraud hinges on intent.