IntroductionIn order to maintain social cohesion, the criminal justice system must be able to adapt, expand and create laws to repress behavior that previously could not -not be an offense in previous generations. This is seen in the repeal of 'theft' and its subsequent ad hoc statutory offences, with the replacement of a set of dishonesty offences, known as 'theft and its satellites'. This meant that laws were now able to extend to conduct that did not threaten or violate property rights, included the dishonest acquisition or imposition of intangible advantages and disadvantages, and encompassed the simple usurpation of property rights. beyond “grab and go”. This commonality later extended to the replacement of obtaining goods by false pretenses of deception and its subsequent offenses, dishonest handling of documents, dishonest handling of machines and exploitation. Such expansion, however, raises concerns of indeterminacy, scale, and vagueness rather than uniformity and community. Therefore, this essay will explore whether deception and two of its subsequent offenses are founded and justified in an increasingly over-criminalized society. Dishonest Handling of Documents This offense has been considerably condensed and simplified from the old Counterfeiting and Related Fraud Act. There must be actual or intended deception involving a document, with the intent to cause benefit or harm to another person. This means that the simple physical element of "dealing", either by engaging in the creation or falsification of a document or by possessing such a document, with the offending element of "intent" to deceive , exploit, manipulate or cause benefit or harm is sufficient to satisfy the prosecution. The...... middle of document ......to consider the principles of criminal law. The first offense explored offers a clear reconciliation with the “central model of criminal liability” and is in fact paramount to satisfying “fair labeling” in the interests of offenders and potential employers. The second offense appears to satisfy the “harm principle” and is integral because it ensures social cohesion and encompasses the progression of an ever more technological society. It also aims to remind potential violators that such disruption of the use of technology is a punishable offense. It therefore appears that the laws extended to the offense of deception are based on principles within the criminal justice system. Not only does this avoid generality, vagueness and indeterminacy, but arguably such offenses provide depth, clarity and conciseness in order to define acceptable standards of conduct within society..