essay mills law uk

This blog post was published under the 2015-2024 Conservative Administration

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/28/essay-mills-are-now-illegal-skills-minister-calls-on-internet-service-providers-to-crack-down-on-advertising/

Essay mills are now illegal - Skills Minister calls on internet service platforms to crack down on advertising

Skills Minister Alex Burghart has written to internet service platforms to make sure they know that essay mills - which facilitate cheating by helping academic writing, often by appearing to be legitimate - have been made illegal and to call on their support in making sure they can no longer advertise online. Here you can read that letter.

The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill has become law. Through this act, the Government has legislated for landmark reforms that will transform post-16 education and skills, including criminalising essay mills.

As you may know, Essay Mills are online platforms that facilitate contract cheating. Contract cheating happens when a third party completes work for a student which is passed off by the student as their own work. Many essay mill companies use marketing techniques which indicate they are offering ‘legitimate’ academic writing support for students. Reports also indicate that some essay mills seek to blackmail students who use these services. It is right that we have legislated against these insidious crimes.

It is now a criminal offence to provide or arrange for another person to provide contract cheating services for financial gain to students taking a qualification at a post-16 institution or sixth form in England, enrolled at a higher education provider in England and any other person over compulsory school age who has been entered for a regulated qualification at a place in England.

Similarly, it is now an offence for a person to make arrangements for an advertisement in which that person offers, or is described as being available or competent, to provide or arrange for another person to provide a cheating service. Importantly, the offence centres around the act of advertising to students, and for the offence to be committed it does not need to be seen by its target demographic.

There is now a strengthened, collaborative effort across the sector to tackle essay mills and we want you to be part of this campaign. Platforms such as yourself play an integral role in helping us to make the most effective use of the legislation; marketing and advertising are the lifeblood of any successful industry. We are aware that high numbers of essay mills have used your platform to promote their services to students in the past, paying for advertising to promote their companies. Essay mills are now illegal entities, and you should not carry their advertising. It is no longer a moral question; you will be facilitating an illegal activity. I ask you to do everything in your power to prevent the advertising these unscrupulous practices.

Removing essay mill access to online marketing will seriously hamper their efforts to target vulnerable students and I implore you to do so following the introduction of this legislation. We must now all work together to capitalise on it.

I hope that in writing to you today I have underlined the urgency of this issue and the important role that companies like yours play in stamping out essay mills once and for all and am sure I can be confident in your support.

Thank you for your support with this important matter.

Tags: cheating , essay mills , internet service platforms

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

Follow us on social media, search by date.

Comments and moderation policy

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skills Bill becomes law

Skills and Post-16 Education Act to level up and drive economic growth across the whole country

New laws have been passed today (28 April) through the Skills and Post-16 Education Act that will help transform the skills and training landscape and level up opportunities across the country.

Skills to support the growing green economy will be prioritised to create a workforce for jobs now and in the future, and schools will be required to make sure all children get to meet people that provide technical education routes such as apprenticeships, T Levels or traineeships – opening their eyes to a wide range of careers.

The legislation will help economic recovery and growth by making it easier for people to get the skills they need to secure well-paid jobs in industries with skills gaps, such as health and social care, engineering, digital, clean energy and manufacturing. It will also give more people the opportunity to get jobs in their local areas, by requiring employers and colleges to work together to identify the skills needed within communities.

The unethical practice of essay mills will also be criminalised to tackle companies that actively facilitate cheating and dishonest behaviour by providing students with essays for money.

The Act underpins the government’s transformation of post-16 education and skills as set out in the Skills for Jobs White Paper and will help level up and drive growth across the whole country.

Minister for Skills Alex Burghart said:

The Skills and Post-16 Education Act will transform the skills, training and post-16 education landscape and level up opportunities across the country. This legislation will make sure everyone can gain the skills they need to progress into a rewarding job, and businesses have access to a pipeline of talented, qualified employees for their workforces – boosting productivity.

Key measures introduced by the Act include:

• embedding employers in the heart of the skills system by placing a legal requirement on colleges and other providers to work with employers to develop skills plans, so that the training on offer meets the needs of local areas, and people no longer have to leave their hometowns to find great jobs;
• making sure all pupils meet providers of technical education so that they understand the wide range of career routes and training available to them, such as apprenticeships, T Levels or traineeships, not just the traditional academic options;
• prioritising green skills so the training on offer across the country meets the needs of the growing green economy and helps gets more people into jobs;
• supporting the transformation of the current student loans system so from 2025 learners can access a flexible loan for higher-level education and training at university or college, useable at any point in their lives;
• introducing new powers to intervene when colleges are failing to deliver good outcomes for the communities they serve;
• making it a criminal offence to provide, arrange or advertise essay mill services for financial gain to students taking a post-16 qualification at institutions in England including colleges, universities and sixth forms; and
• creating a unified skills system that builds from quality gains achieved with apprenticeships and T Levels by ensuring all technical qualifications match up to employers’ high standards.

Employers in eight trailblazer areas across the country have already been working with local training providers to create skills plans that align to what local communities need. These plans are now being rolled out across the country, opening up more opportunities for people to gain the skills they and businesses need to succeed.

The new measures build on the work already under way to boost skills and get more people into better jobs, including working with employers to create more apprenticeship opportunities, establishing a network of Institutes of Technology and rolling out new T Levels.

Jennifer Coupland, chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), which leads with implementing the government’s employer-led technical education reforms, said:

Following passage of this landmark legislation, we can look forward to creating a unified skills system which is simpler to understand and employers and learners can really trust. IfATE has empowered employers to drive up the quality of apprenticeships and roll out exciting new T Levels. The time is now right to extend the employer-led reforms across technical education.

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

• Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Updates to this page

Related content, is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

Important notice: Essay writing services now illegal in the UK

Following a government reform, it is now illegal to use and/or provide contract cheating services.

On Thursday 28 April 2022, the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill became law, making it a criminal offence to engage in paid cheating services, often known as essay mills.

Essay mills offer students in Post-16 education plagiarism free essays and assignments in exchange for money.

The government has listened to calls for legislation and intervened to criminalise the provision of, and advertising of, cheating services. This aims to minimise the number of these essay mills in operation and to enhance activity already taking place to detect, deter and address incidents of cheating.

In a letter to Higher Education (HE) providers , Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Skills, Alex Burghart MP said: “Cheating of any kind is unacceptable. It not only threatens to undermine the reputation of our world-class higher education sector, but also devalues the hard work of those who succeed on their own merit.”

The university takes academic offences very seriously. Submitting work that is not your own can lead to expulsion.

We want to ensure that all DMU students are following academic regulations, which we outline  here .

The Centre for Learning and Study Support (CLaSS) team work with undergraduate, postgraduate and research students at DMU to provide support and guidance on a range of areas, such as planning assignments, how to approach critical analysis and how to improve your research and referencing.

You can access the CLaSS services here .

  Search news archive

Search for:

Jump straight to:

Please enter a search term

What sectors are you interested in?

We can use your selection to show you more of the content that you’re interested in.

Sign-up and we’ll remember your preferences

Sign-up to follow topics, sectors, people and also have the option to receive a weekly update of lastest news across your areas of interest.

Got an account already? Sign in

Want to speak to an advisor from your closest office?

Out-law / your daily need-to-know.

Out-Law Analysis 3 min. read

‘Essay mills’ ban will benefit universities and students alike

26 Oct 2021, 9:05 am

The Department for Education (DfE) announced in early October that “essay mills” are to be made illegal under a new Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. This follows calls from Chris Skidmore, former universities minister, in February to impose a ban.

The measures will make it a criminal offence to provide, arrange or advertise these cheating services for financial gain to students taking post-16 qualifications at institutions in England, including universities. The DfE said this will help protect students by ensuring that they are not placed at risk by “deceptive marketing techniques of contract cheating services”.

Julian Sladdin

The announcement provides a clear message from the government that cheating will not be tolerated in UK higher education

Why action is needed now

The move to ban essay mills is long overdue. Evidence for legislative intervention has been building over a number of years to the point where the problem of web-based essay mill services is now a global issue.

The availability of these businesses and their ability to target students in further and higher education is a major assault on academic integrity and an attack on the core values of academia. Any further delay in introducing a ban would continue to be harmful to the sector as a whole and place vulnerable students at further risk of being drawn into using contract cheating services.

The growing evidence for intervention

In September 2018, 46 vice-chancellors from some of the UK's leading universities, together with other sector leaders, felt compelled to write an open letter to Damian Hinds, the then education secretary in England, requesting that the government introduce legislation to outlaw the "provision and advertising of essay mills" before the end of that parliament. This followed a survey by Swansea University which indicated that as many as one in seven graduates may have paid someone else to write an essay or assignment for them, and that internationally up to 31 million graduates could have engaged in the practice of contract cheating – paying another party to prepare work to be submitted for assessment – during their time at university.

Another study by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education QAA) found 17,000 cases of cheating by students, although no breakdown of contract cheating cases is available from the QAA research. Its most recent surveys suggest cheating has increased through the pandemic and that there are over 900 essay mills operating in the UK. This is up from 635 in 2018.

While various UK government ministers have confirmed over the past few years that legislation to address the problem was an option, it had appeared until now that the latest government policy was to put the onus on the universities sector to take action themselves to address the issue, through getting students to commit to ‘honour codes’  upon enrolment, for instance. The only other actions proposed beyond that was a request that payment providers stop processing payments to essay mills, for other online platforms to remove advertisements for essay writing services and promotional content about those services, and for the government to discuss with technology providers the better use of anti-cheating software.

Action taken by the sector

The higher education sector and online platforms do not have a role to play, and a joined-up response is required, but it is clear based on the mounting evidence that legislative intervention – like what has already happened in New Zealand and Australia – is a core part of what is needed to combat the problem of essay mills.

The higher education sector has made significant progress in combatting academic misconduct, in all its forms, over the last few years. This has included the use of better technology, more robust policies and assessment design, and better educating students as to the significant risks to them of cheating in assessed work.

In addition, guidance from the QAA in 2017, updated in 2020, on how to address contract cheating has resulted in institutions blocking access to sites which are known to offer essay writing services through their IT systems, updating their induction processes, student support and assessments as well as the wording of student undertakings regarding the integrity of work submitted for assessment to combat this issue. Universities have also been making it implicit to staff that offering their services to such companies could have serious disciplinary implications.

Real world impact 

However, the statistics from Swansea University and QAA have shown that the problem is not only worldwide but increasing despite the steps already taken by universities and online platforms and payment providers.

Anecdotally, we have heard that the lack of legal restrictions on the trading of essay services is creating a safeguarding issue in relation to the most vulnerable students. There are concerning examples of vulnerable students all too often being enticed to use the services of essay mills by assurances given by those providers that their activities are legitimate study aids only for them to be subsequently blackmailed by those providers to hand over ever increasing sums of money on threat of being exposed to their university.

Therefore, while long overdue, it is extremely welcome that the UK government is now putting forward legislation to curb the activities of essay mills. In addition to offering the protections afforded by a statutory ban, the announcement provides a clear message from the government that cheating will not be tolerated in UK higher education. This planned intervention is critical if the apparent continuing increase in contract cheating amongst university students is to be reversed. 

• Universities
• Consumer Protection
• United Kingdom
• Your risks and regulatory environment

Latest News

Indian supreme court shows pro-arbitration stance in jurisdictional arguments, dutch employment budget sets out significant changes to employment law, using civil courts in england to recover assets and losses after employee fraud, uk vat domestic reverse charge for buildings and construction, qatar government remote working initiative ‘demonstrates progressive efforts’, editor's pick.

Out-Law News

Essay mills: UK government looks to 'honour codes' and platforms

20 Mar 2019

UK should ban 'essay mills', say leading academics

27 Sep 2018

Don't miss a thing

Sign-up to receive the latest news, analysis and events direct to your e-mail inbox

You might also like

Bank of england tells firms to test for ‘extreme but plausible’ service disruption.

Operators of financial markets infrastructure (FMIs), such as payment systems, have been advised to anticipate – and undertake robust testing around – “extreme but plausible” scenarios that could cause disruption to services, ahead of new rules on operational resilience taking effect in the UK next year.

UK government to ‘fine-tune’ NSI regime following consultation

The UK government will seek to “fine-tune” its national security investment screening regime to stay ahead of potential national security threats following a recent consultation outcome and in light of recent geopolitical developments, it has announced.

UK ‘cookie law’ enforcement not dependent on complaints

Businesses should expect the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to undertake more ‘own initiative’ investigations into compliance with UK ‘cookie laws’ in the months and years ahead, an expert in data protection and privacy law has said.

Trending topics across the site:

• Employment & Reward
• Construction Advisory & Disputes
• Artificial Intelligence
• Data, privacy & cyber
• Corporate tax

UK government plans to revamp holiday pay calculation for part-year workers

Out-Law Analysis

Pensions disputes: managing member expectations paramount

UK subsidy control post-Brexit: access to effective judicial remedies

'Steps of court' settlement was not negligent, court rules

'Vast majority' of companies not seeking to avoid tax

'World first' industrial decarbonisation strategy developed in the UK

3D printing: UK product safety issues

5G potential for business highlighted in UK funding programme

Sectors and what we do

Sectors we work in.

• Financial Services
• Infrastructure
• Technology, Science & Industry
• Real Estate
• Your assets
• Your company
• Your finance
• Your legal team and resource
• Your people

Your privacy matters to us

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. To improve our site, we would like to use additional cookies to help us understand how visitors use it, measure traffic to our site from social media platforms and to personalise your experience. Some of the cookies that we use are provided by third parties. To accept all cookies click ‘accept all’. To reject all optional cookies click ‘reject all’. To choose which optional cookies to allow click ‘cookie settings’. This tool uses a cookie to remember your choices. Please visit our cookie policy for more information.

Student News

Saturday, 28 september, search for news, browse student news stories.

• All Student news
• All featured

UK Government ban on Essay Mills

As a Liverpool student you are expected to uphold the highest level of academic integrity by demonstrating authentic and ethical behaviour and conduct in all of your academic work.

Using Essay Mills is a type of academic misconduct, and earlier this this year, the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill became law . Through this act, the Government has passed changes that will transform higher education, including criminalising Essay Mills.

It is now a criminal offence to:

• provide, or arrange for another person to provide, contract cheating services to students taking a qualification at a University or Higher Education Institution in England. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
• to advertise any service or individual that is offering a cheating service. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.

What are Essay Mills?

Essay Mills are online platforms that facilitate contract cheating. Contract cheating happens when someone else completes work for a student (in full or in part) which is passed off by the student as their own work.

What does the ban mean for students?

Following the latest legislation, Essay Mills are now illegal and you should not engage with or respond to their advertising.

In line with our Academic Integrity policy, students should not use any material provided as a result of an Essay Mills service in completing all or part of the assignment. Please be aware that while it is not a criminal offense to make use of a contract cheating service, this is deemed as ‘severe academic misconduct’ and could lead to disciplinary action by the University.

What should I do if targeted by Essay Mills?

Essay Mills will often disguise themselves as ‘proofreading’, ‘tutorial’ and ‘academic support’ services. They may target you via email, text, pop-up and social media advertising.

If you receive this type of marketing you should:

• Delete it immediately
• Do not use click though links
• Do not offer any personal information or contact details

If you need any academic or assessment support, please also remember that you can contact your School Office . You can find a range of online resources in the Know How area on Canvas and KnowHow also offer in person workshops to support the development of academic skills.  As a starters, all students should complete this KnowHow tutorial to find out more about what academic integrity is and why it is so important.

The  Liaison Librarian for your subject  can offer specialist subject support when researching for your assignments. You can  book an online appointment with a Liaison Librarian online .

• Student Featured 2
• academic integrity
• assessment support
• essay mills

Top of page

Article England: Legislation Introduced Prohibiting 'Essay Mills' in Higher Education

Back to Search Results

On October 5, 2021, a new chapter was added to the United Kingdom (U.K.) Parliament’s Skills and Post Education Bill . If enacted, the bill would make it a criminal offense to provide for or arrange, for financial gain, services to any students studying at an institution in England providing education to students older than 16 (“post-16 education”). The bill would also make it an offense to advertise these services. The bill defines “services” as “completing all or part of an assignment on behalf of a student.” The offenses would be punishable with a fine.

These services, known as “essay mills,” have been described by Member of Parliament Chris Skidmore as “a rot that infects the very discipline of learning and has the potential to damage academic integrity beyond repair.” By banning these services, the government aims to “safeguard the academic integrity and standards of post-16 and higher education in England and protect students from falling prey to the deceptive marketing techniques of contract cheating services. ”

Despite the government calling on private industry to restrict advertising and methods of payments for these essay mills, and the fact that students can face severe academic penalties for using them, the number of essay mills operating in the U.K. has steadily increased over the past few years, rising from 635 in June 2018 to 932 in February 2021. In 2018 it was estimated that one in seven students had paid for an essay and that both students and YouTubers were being hired as influencers to promote essay mills. The cost of a standard 2,000-word essay varies from 3 pounds to 800 pounds, with the most prominent essay mill charging 279 pounds (approximately US$4, $1,085, and $380, respectively) for an essay delivered within a week. In addition, students have reportedly been blackmailed by essay mills and threatened with being exposed to their universities or employers after they have used these services.

Essay mills claim they aim to help “ increase a student’s understanding of a topic ,” while educational professionals note that these companies aggressively market their services to students toward the end of the semester, close to the deadline when papers should be submitted, when students are feeling pressure to meet deadlines.

The government is continuing to work alongside the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Universities UK, and the National Union of Students to help produce guidance for both educational institutions on how to tackle essay mills and educate students to ensure they are aware of the consequences of cheating.

This is not the first time legislation to prohibit essay mills from operating in England has been proposed. On February 10, 2021, a private member’s bill titled the Essay Mills (Prohibition) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and before that, on January 30, 2020, another private member’s bill titled Higher Education Cheating Services Prohibition Bill had been introduced in the House of Lords. Both failed to progress through Parliament, which is not unusual for private member’s bills, which frequently aim to highlight an issue.

The Skills and Post Education Bill also contains provisions that are not related to essay mills. The bill aims to tackle shortages in employment in areas such as engineering, clean energy, and manufacturing by requiring schools, when providing career advice , to give as much weight to technical education, such as apprenticeships, as to traditional academic education.

About this Item

• England: Legislation Introduced Prohibiting 'Essay Mills' in Higher Education

Online Format

• Global Legal Monitor (7,747)
• Law Library of Congress (427,143)
• Consumer Protection
• Crime and Law Enforcement
• Elementary and Secondary Education
• Employment and Training Programs
• Higher Education
• Marketing and Advertising
• School Administration
• Value-Added Tax
• Vocational Education

Jurisdiction

• United Kingdom

Article Author

• Feikert-Ahalt, Clare

Rights & Access

Publications of the Library of Congress are works of the United States Government as defined in the  United States Code 17 U.S.C. §105  and therefore are not subject to copyright and are free to use and reuse.  The Library of Congress has no objection to the international use and reuse of Library U.S. Government works on  loc.gov . These works are also available for worldwide use and reuse under CC0 1.0 Universal. 

More about Copyright and other Restrictions.

For guidance about compiling full citations consult Citing Primary Sources.

Credit Line: Law Library of Congress

Cite This Item

Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data as a convenience, and may not be complete or accurate.

Chicago citation style:

Feikert-Ahalt, Clare. England: Legislation Introduced Prohibiting 'Essay Mills' in Higher Education . 2021. Web Page. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-10-24/england-legislation-introduced-prohibiting-essay-mills-in-higher-education/.

APA citation style:

Feikert-Ahalt, C. (2021) England: Legislation Introduced Prohibiting 'Essay Mills' in Higher Education . [Web Page] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-10-24/england-legislation-introduced-prohibiting-essay-mills-in-higher-education/.

MLA citation style:

Feikert-Ahalt, Clare. England: Legislation Introduced Prohibiting 'Essay Mills' in Higher Education . 2021. Web Page. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-10-24/england-legislation-introduced-prohibiting-essay-mills-in-higher-education/>.

Essay Mills (Prohibition) Bill

Private members' bill (under the ten minute rule).

Originated in the House of Commons, Session 2019-21

Last updated: 4 May 2021 at 16:21

• Final stages

See full passage

• Publications

Bill passage

‘Unethical’ essay mills to be banned in England under Government plans

Essay mills are set to be banned in England under plans to reform post-16 education.

The Government intends to make it a criminal offence to provide, arrange or advertise essay-writing services for financial gain to university and college students.

Making essay mills illegal under new legislation will help protect students from falling prey to the “deceptive marketing techniques of contract cheating services”, the Department for Education (DfE) has said.

It is one of a number of measures being introduced to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill – which aims to transform further and technical education.

Careers education in schools will also be strengthened to ensure all pupils have opportunities to learn about all the technical education options available to them – including apprenticeships, T-levels and traineeships.

Essay mills are completely unethical and profit by undermining the hard work most students do

Skills Minister Alex Burghart

Skills Minister Alex Burghart said: “Essay mills are completely unethical and profit by undermining the hard work most students do.

“We are taking steps to ban these cheating services.

“We have also announced a new measure to make sure all young people receive broader careers guidance so everyone can get the advice that’s right for them.”

Essay mills, which are already illegal in some countries, make money by encouraging students to cheat in assessments.

Their services include providing students with ready-made essays to pass off as their own.

The Government hopes banning the services will help to safeguard the academic integrity and standards of post-16 and higher education in England.

It comes after former universities minister Chris Skidmore called for essay mill websites to be outlawed in February this year.

In June, the Government pledged to work with politicians on proposed legislation around banning essay-writing services.

Tory frontbencher Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay told peers there is a “strong case” to support institutions in dealing with the rising number of essay mills.

The law will also be changed to give equality to technical education in careers advice in schools, so all pupils understand the wide range of routes and training available to them, not just academic routes.

Additional amendments to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, which enters its report stage in the House of Lords on October 12, includes allowing more faith school providers to open post-16 academies with a religious character.

A Universities UK (UUK) spokeswoman said: “We welcome this news. UUK has repeatedly called for essay writing services to be made illegal and we have worked together with Government, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and other higher education bodies to tackle their use.

“While the use of essay mills by students is rare, all universities have codes of conduct that include severe penalties for students found to be submitting work that is not their own.

“Universities have become increasingly experienced at dealing with such issues and are engaging with students from day-one to underline the implications of cheating and how it can be avoided.”

Gareth Crossman, head of policy and public affairs at the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), said: “We’re delighted that the DfE has agreed to outlaw these unscrupulous outfits that threaten the integrity of UK higher education and prey on vulnerable students, and hope other UK Governments will also take action.

“This sends a clear signal but, with well over 1000 essay mills in operation, the sector must continue working together to put them out of business.”

A spokesperson for the National Union of Students (NUS) said: “These private companies prey on students’ vulnerabilities and insecurities to make money through exploitation, and never more so than during the pandemic.

“NUS has called on the Government to take action against them in the past, and I hope they are finally listening.

“In the meantime, we would urge universities to put in place academic and pastoral support so that students are never in the position of feeling they have to turn to essay mills in the first place.”

Create a FREE account to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in

• Skip to main content
• English Français Italiano Pусский Español 日本語 繁體中文 简体中文

The current page is not available in English (UK) - would you like to go to the UK home page or stay on this page?

Essay-writing services to be made illegal in England

22 February 2022 | Applicable law: England and Wales

Essay-writing services, known as essay mills, are to be made illegal under plans announced by the government on 5 October 2021.

The government intends to make it a criminal offence to provide, arrange, or advertise any essay-writing services for financial gain to students taking a qualification at any institution in England providing post-16 education, including universities.

The move follows a number of steps already taken by the government to protect academic integrity from the effect of essay mills. In 2018, 46 university vice-chancellors wrote a joint letter calling for essay-writing services to banned, and the government worked with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Universities UK and the National Union of Students to produce guidance on how institutions could counter the threat of contract cheating, and for students to make them better aware of the consequences (which might include removal from their course of study or expulsion from their place of study). The latest efforts to outlaw essay mills and other ‘contract cheating’ has been welcomed by members of all parties and across the education industry, and hailed as safeguarding the academic integrity and standards of post-16 and higher education in England as well as protecting young people during their studies.

The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (the ‘Bill’) introduces this measure as a means to protect students from the “deceptive marking techniques of contract cheating services”. The Bill also aims to help level up opportunities across the country by transforming the existing educational landscape: alternative training and career routes, such as technical education, apprenticeships, T Levels or traineeships, are to be emphasised and given equal status alongside the traditional academic route (as set out in the Skills for Jobs White Paper ).

Essay mills – given that they profit from committing academic fraud – are largely considered to be unethical, though they remain lawful in most countries. The UK follows in the footsteps of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland by taking action against contract cheating.

Ghostwriting services are active globally, and often target students who are studying in a second language. The rise in demand for such services are likely the result of increased competition for university places, especially where coursework and open-book exams contribute to pivotal final grades. Ironically, these services encourage a lack of scholarship that sets students up poorly for further education.

The online learning environment that developed as a result of stay-at-home mandates during the Covid-19 pandemic meant that students became increasingly vulnerable to the lures of essay-writing services. As campus welfare and support became less accessible to students working remotely from home and motivation throughout the academic year dwindled as Zoom-fatigue set in, levels of online cheating exploded: the Quality Assurance Agency estimated in 2021 that there are at least 932 sites in operation in the UK, up from 904 in December 2020, 881 in October 2020 and 635 in June 2018. More brazenly, there are examples of essay mill service providers taking advantage of the difficult circumstances faced by students during the pandemic by offering 2-4-1 deals and other special offers to ‘help’ students navigate a difficult and unusual few academic years.

While the proposals in the Bill are welcome, the measures do not amount to a full solution to online cheating. The International Journal for Educational Integrity has highlighted the increasing number of ways in which students wishing to circumvent rules on academic honesty may do so using technology. For example, the use of file-sharing websites to request assistance from others and receive answers to exam questions – in real time and during exam conditions – has risen by an estimated 196% in the year 2020-21 in STEM subjects. The Bill does not extend to Wales or Scotland, for whom education is a devolved matter: essay mills may yet target UK schools and universities and see plenty reason to maintain operations.

Gareth Crossman, head of policy and public affairs at the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, has touched on the length of the journey ahead, saying: “ [the Bill] sends a clear signal but, with well over 1000 essay mills in operation, the sector must continue working together to put them out of business. ” Only time will tell whether the measures, when implemented, are effective, and whether the government needs to go further to protect students from predatory academic practices in future.

This document (and any information accessed through links in this document) is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Professional legal advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.

Get in touch

Related experience.

As a full-service law firm, we are able to provide advice and information about a wide range of other issues. Here are some related areas.

Join the club

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Letter: The criminality of essay mills is hurting universities

Limited time offer, save 50% on standard digital, explore more offers..

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism. Cancel anytime during your trial.

Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• FT App on Android & iOS
• FT Edit app
• FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
• 20+ curated newsletters
• Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
• FT Videos & Podcasts
• 20 monthly gift articles to share
• Lex: FT's flagship investment column
• 15+ Premium newsletters by leading experts
• FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition

FT Digital Edition

10% off your first year. The new FT Digital Edition: today’s FT, cover to cover on any device. This subscription does not include access to ft.com or the FT App.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

Essay mills explained: What they are and why you should avoid them

Essays and term papers can be stressful, especially for international students who sometimes doubt their ability to research in depth and write thousands of words in English, all to a tight deadline.  

That’s where essay mills come in, exploiting the fears of students and offering to do the hard work for them in exchange for money. 

But here’s the spoiler alert - you should absolutely avoid essay mills. All the time.

They don’t work for you. They don’t even work for the essay writers themselves, and you should see that as a big warning sign. But more on that below.

What are essay mills? 

Essay mills are pretty straightforward: You pay a company to write your essay for you. The company in turn offloads the essay to a (usually freelance) writer. A couple days or weeks later, and you get your completed essay in return. 

It’s not like a proofreading service, where someone can check your spelling, grammar and citations for a fee (though even those are controversial in universities). No, essay mills offer to write you an entire essay from scratch. 

In other words, they allow students to commit academic fraud. In fact, they exploit the worries and stresses of students and entice them into cheating. They’re considered deeply unethical, and put students themselves at risk of severe punishment if caught. 

Another business model of this kind are essay banks. Here, students can buy essays that have already been written. But there’s a much higher risk of getting caught for plagiarism, since who knows how many hundreds or thousands of people have used that very same essay. 

Are essay mills legal or illegal?

The legality of essay mills depends on where you go to university, but the unethicality is clear no matter the location. Here’s a quick rundown of essay mills’ legal status in popular study abroad countries:  

Anti - essay mill legislation in the UK was passed in the House of Commons in February 2021, and will soon be made law. It’s not totally illegal yet, but it’s just a matter of time. 

The Republic of Ireland has also passed a number of bills to help tackle essay mills, while the practice is totally illegal in Australia and New Zealand. 

As for the USA and Canada, some US states have made them illegal, while Canada is under mounting pressure to follow suit.  

But the content and nuances of these laws changes from place to place. For example, in some US states it’s illegal for the student to use them, whereas the bills in Ireland, the UK, New Zealand and Australia are an attempt to criminalise essay mill companies themselves.

However, when we talk about legality, we’re of course talking about the law. But just because you might not cause a criminal offense by using essay mills, it’s still academic fraud and/or plagiarism. And getting caught for that can come with some dire consequences. 

Long story short, you really shouldn’t use them, regardless of their legality. 

Why you should avoid essay mills

1. if it doesn’t make dollars, it doesn’t make sense.

The writer's pay is awful. I mean really bad. Trust me -- I write for a living, and I’ve seen hundreds of advertisements for essay mill jobs. Every time I see one I can’t believe how little money the writers make for so much time and effort.  

But does this affect you? Totally! Would you care about doing great work if, a) the money was terrible, and b) it wouldn’t take you anywhere in your career? I know I wouldn’t...

Let’s talk about cost and time to put this into some perspective. The price range of essay mills varies wildly depending on the writers they employ. You can pay anywhere between £10-£35 per page. Roll this out over a 10 page essay, and it could be anywhere between £100 and £350 for the final product. But you can also come across offers for much, much less money than this.

While that higher end of £350 might seem like a lot of money, trust me -- it’s really nothing for the amount of research, writing, citations, editing and proofreading required. 

If £100 per day is considered a “just fine but not great” sum of money in the UK, a writer would have to do all the work on your essay in 2.5 days just to make it worthwhile. And they’d have to do it without the subject knowledge that you have. 

2. The writers aren’t subject experts

Think about it: if they were a subject expert, would they really be working for a shady company that facilitates cheating? Not a chance. 

The main point is that these writers are badly underpaid and they’re not experts, therefore they’re putting very little effort or expertise into your essay. They just want to do it as quickly as possible before moving onto the next one. 

3. There’s no guarantee of a good grade

None. Since the writers are underpaid, lack expertise and rush their work, it’s a recipe for a bad final product. Multiple studies have shown that essay mills do mediocre work at best. 

The essay you pay hundreds of pounds for might get you a pass grade, but you could do much better yourself. 

4. The punishment is harsh

Every university has severe laws on plagiarism and academic fraud, which is the exact result of using an essay mill. At its most lenient, a student caught breaking rules on plagiarism will receive no grade at all for the work, but at worst they can be suspended or even expelled from your university.  

But the perfect “crime” goes unnoticed, right? Well, it’s unlikely in this case. 

5. Essay mills and detection services

Most universities use pretty innovative plagiarism detection software these days, which can pick up on any hint of fraudulent work. Thus, the risk of getting caught is very high. And by the time a student does get caught, they’ve already lost their hard earned cash to the essay mill company. 

6. Essay mills don’t care about you

The company doesn’t care about you, and nor does the writer. That’s a pretty bad starting point for doing business! Once they’ve got their money and done their sub-standard work, they can move on to exploiting someone else’s fears. 

7. There’s a risk of scams 

Most essay mill sites demand a deposit of the final amount, or sometimes the entire fee up front. Either way, you won’t see your essay until you’ve paid them something. This makes it a prime opportunity for scam artists to take your money without giving anything in return. 

You see, it’s extremely easy for scam artists to launch a website advertising essays for sale, then just shut the operation down once they’ve made some quick cash without doing any work. 

Speaking of scams, here’s an article on some other international student scams to watch out for !

8. There’s a risk of bribery too

And then there’s the risk of bribery. Even if a student thinks they’re anonymous while dealing with essay mills, they’re not. There’s an email address, bank account name, even their IP address to worry about. 

So if the company or the writer decides that they want to blackmail or bribe a student by threatening to unveil the truth, they can. And they’ll always be able to.  

A final word on essay mills: Honest work is the best work

It sounds old fashioned, but there’s no replacement for smart, hard, honest work. Any student can write a great term paper or essay assignment on their own. All it takes is time, research, and some focus. 

Even if you’re under pressure or lack some confidence in your English ability, there are so many better ways to deal with it. Use a study abroad education counsellor , speak to your teachers and your friends. They’ll be able to point you in the right direction and help make that essay easier. 

As for essay mills? Forget about them. They’re exploitative, they serve no good purpose, and you can do a better job yourself!

So you’re thinking about studying abroad? Great! Check out the range of amazing courses available through Edvoy. Click here to get started or click the button below!

Guest Author | Study Abroad Expert

Disclaimer: The views and opinions shared in this site solely belong to the individual authors and do not necessarily represent t ...Read More

Student life in the UK: what to expect?

8 best universities to study game design in the UK

The 5 most popular areas for student accommodation in Manchester

11 highest paying degrees in the UK 2024

Top 10 tips for students to keep busy during quarantine

10 Best student cities in the UK for Indian students

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 26 December 2019

Are essay mills committing fraud? A further analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 fraud act (UK)

• Michael J. Draper 1 &
• Callum Reid-Hutchings 1  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  15 , Article number:  11 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

4723 Accesses

5 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Many strategies have been proposed to address the supply of bespoke essays and other assignments by companies often described as ‘Essay Mills’ with the act of supply and use being invariably described as ‘contract cheating’. These proposals increasingly refer to the law as a solution in common with other action. In this article, the lead author revisits work undertaken in 2016 as a result of recent legal and extra-legal developments to assess whether the UK Fraud Act (2006) might now be used to tackle some of the activities of the companies involved, by comparing their common practises, and their Terms and Conditions, with the Act. It was previously found that all sites have disclaimers regarding the use of their products but there were some obvious contradictions in the activities of the sites which undermined those disclaimers, for example plagiarism-free guarantees for the work. In this article, we ask and consider the question whether this is still the case having regard to the impact of a change in the law by the UK supreme court and recent action of the UK Advertising Standards Authority. We also consider whether a call for a new offence to be created which specifically targets the undesirable behaviours of these companies is still justified.

In this article we consider the development of law and policy in the area of contract cheating and in particular, whether or not recent changes in UK law, action taken by the Advertising Standards Authority and the guidance issued by the Quality Assurance Agency for the UK (QAA 2016 , QAA 2017 ) have had an impact on the knowledge and state of mind of UK registered companies engaged in supplying essays to students for financial gain and the consequences for the operation of the Fraud Act 2006.

Our findings in relation to the action taken by the Advertising Standards Authority have a wider implication for the current debate in relation to proposed legislative responses to contract cheating across the common law world, in particular Australia and the Republic of Ireland.

In earlier work, Draper et al. ( 2017 ), and Draper and Newton ( 2017 ) considered the main actors in contract cheating: a student, their university, and a third party (often a company or ‘Essay Mill’) who completes assessments for the former to be submitted to the latter, but whose input is not permitted. They also considered the legal consequences that might apply to such arrangements. Those legal consequences focussed on the operation of the Fraud Act 2006 and the relationship with the legal test of dishonesty necessary to establish criminal liability on the part of an Essay Mill under that Act.

Since the original work was undertaken there have been several critical developments in relation to essay mills in the UK. As noted above these involve a change in the law on dishonesty, action taken by the Advertising Standards Authority and guidance published by the quality assurance agency for the UK.

We undertook further and new research to update and expand upon our 2016/2017 findings to determine whether or not these developments have had an impact in the manner in which Essay Mills operate. Given the potential consequences of continuing to operate as usual in the context of these developments we thought it reasonable to assume that a fundamental change to the business model of Essay Mills and the terms and conditions under which they operate would be evident.

Assessing guilty minds

New case law has demonstrated and reaffirmed how knowledge may be attributed to Essay Mill companies in order to determine their potential criminal liability. Criminal liability usually requires that the defendant have a guilty state of mind, a criminal mental element which lawyers call ‘ mens rea’.

The Fraud Act 2006 (UK Government E 2006 ) has 16 sections but one general offence of fraud which may be committed in 3 principal ways:

section 2 (fraud by false representation),

section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and

section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

The guilty state of mind necessary to secure a successful prosecution for the purposes of these sections is focussed on the dishonesty, intention and knowledge of the perpetrator. As Essay Mills tend to operate commercially through a company demonstrating that a company has a guilty state of mind is essential if a criminal prosecution is to succeed. The knowledge of the directors and other principal officers of an Essay Mill must be attributable to the company and this critical issue has recently been considered by the UK Supreme court.

In Jetvia v Bilta (2015, UKSC 23) the Supreme court determined when the knowledge of a director will be imputed to the company. The court held that imputation is sensitive to the particular facts of any case but as a matter of general principle the knowledge of a director will usually be imputed to a company when considering whether a company has committed a criminal offence.

Of particular relevance to our discussion are the observations of Lord Sumption:

“English law might have taken the position that a company, being an artificial legal construct, was mindless. If it had done that, then legal wrongs which depended on proof of some mental element such as dishonesty or intention could never be attributed to a company and the present question could not arise … .. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that neither in the civil nor in the criminal context does this involve piercing the corporate veil. It is simply a recognition of the fact that the law treats a company as thinking through agents, just as it acts through them.”

That the law treats a company as thinking though agents is reinforced by section 12 of the Fraud Act 2006 which provides that an offence is committed by a company if the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the company. Importantly the section goes on to provide that such individuals are also guilty of the offence and liable to prosecution and punishment.

Therefore human agents such as directors of an Essay Mill cannot escape liability and prosecution under the Act by hiding behind corporate personality and action claiming that the guilty mind and action is that of the company and not theirs.

Furthermore those directing the operation of Essay Mills should note that a company may take civil action against its directors for any loss suffered by the company as result of the actions of its directors.

The key question ‘When the directors of a company involve it in a fraudulent transaction, is the company barred by the doctrine of illegality from suing them and their accessories for losses caused by their breach of fiduciary duty?’ has been answered by Jetivia v Bilta with an emphatic ‘No’ .

The fiduciary duty of a director is to act in the best interests of the company in circumstances of absolute trust and loyalty. Consequently directors of Essay Mills are on notice that if a company suffers loss as a result of a breach of the law the company may take action legal against those directing or operating the company to recover its losses as they have failed to act in the best interests of the company. A Director cannot claim that their knowledge is attributed to a company and therefore provides a defence of corporate illegality in any action brought by the company against a director for wrongdoing.

Jetvia v Bilta also confirmed that s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK Government E 1986 , which allows liquidators to seek a contribution from any person who was knowingly party to fraudulent trading by the company) has extra-territorial effect. Claims may be brought against any person across the globe “ at least to the extent of applying to individuals and corporations resident outside the United Kingdom.”

Draper et al. 2017 called for the creation of a specific criminal offence in relation to Essay Mills that had extraterritorial effect because many Essay Mills are legally established outside of the UK but operate within the UK through digital services and platforms.

The case therefore supports the argument that in cases of fraud both the law and the courts will not object on the grounds of principle and are capable of facilitating a criminal prosecution in relation to activity taking place outside of a legal jurisdiction, provided there is an established relationship or activity with the legal jurisdiction in question.

New law of dishonesty

Having established that both a company and its directors and principal officers may be held liable for criminal activity through the construct of a guilty mind, we turn now to consider how the legal test for dishonesty in the UK has fundamentally altered and the consequential potential impact on the liability of Essay Mills and their agents under the Fraud Act.

The Explanatory Note to the Fraud Act 2006 states:

“Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant’s behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.”

In the article ‘Are Essay Mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 Fraud Act (UK) (Draper et al. 2017 ) the difficulties of using the Fraud Act 2006 to take action against Essay Mills was demonstrated primarily because Essay Mills protect themselves in their terms and conditions by stating that their products are only to be used as a ‘reference work’ or equivalent, and must not to be submitted as the student’s own work.

Thus, the second question of R v Ghosh (1982, 1 QB 1053),whether the defendant was aware that conduct was dishonest etc., would probably not be satisfied.

The UK Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017, UKSC 67) has revisited the test of dishonesty with significant consequences for the Fraud Act and Essay Mills.

The court has removed the subjective second question of the test for dishonesty and adopted a refined and straightforward test: does the relevant conduct fall below an objective standard of honesty?

In our view, Essay Mills should have been alerted by this decision to the fact that behaviour will now be judged to be “honest” or “dishonest” simply by the objective standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people. In particular, the guidance given in Ivey by Lord Hughes on the application of the test of dishonesty in relation to criminal offences should be noted:

“When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest. ”

The above analysis of dishonesty was strictly speaking not a binding part of the decision but offered up by way of explanation. However the analysis is important as it points in the strongest terms to a significant change from the previous standards of dishonesty. The clear intention of the Supreme Court means that trial judges may adopt the Ivey test of dishonesty on the assumption that the Court of Appeal would prefer Ivey over Ghosh , as was acknowledged in DPP v Patterson (2017, EWHC 2820).

Indeed this approach has now been approved by the Court of Appeal in the 2019 case of Group Seven Limited & Ors v Notable Services LLP & Orsin (2019, EWCA Civ 614). As we discuss in further detail later on this means that a finding of dishonesty in relation to Essay Mills is more likely because they will simply be judged by an objective standard of dishonesty.

However will Essay Mills persist in relying on their terms and conditions as an ‘industry’ wide standard providing them with a defence against an allegation of dishonest practice?

Most likely they will but the recent case of Carr v Formation Group (2018) confirms that this will not be a viable defence. Under the old test for dishonesty, it was possible to call expert evidence to show that conduct, however dishonest, was ‘market practice’ (or that ‘everybody was doing it’) in order to demonstrate a lack of subjective appreciation that it fell below an objective standard of dishonesty.

Morgan J explained that this could result in some significant consequences for the proper conduct of business. As he succinctly put it in the judgment (at paragraph 32):

“ The history of the markets have shown that, from time to time, markets adopt patterns of behavior which are dishonest by the standards of honest and reasonable people; in such cases, the market has simply abandoned ordinary standards of honesty.”

In other words, it would be perverse to let “markets” decide their own interpretation of honesty and then be judged by that .” The defence of ‘everybody in this was doing it’ is no longer available and this will have an impact across a wide range of industries such as Essay Mills where ordinarily ‘dishonest’ or misleading working cultures and practices have developed.

These practices are often most visible by the advertising employed by businesses and we now turn to developments in this area as a result of action taken by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (‘ASA’) in relation to the advertising of Essay Mills.

ASA rulings

Since July 2016, there have been three referrals to the ASA which we will now address. It is important to keep in mind that many of the observations made are equally applicable to advertising standards in a number of countries.

The first referral to the ASA was made by the QAA in relation to certain aspects of the advertising used by UK Essays. The ASA ruling on All Answers Ltd. t/a UK Essays was delivered on 21.3.18 (ASA 2018 ) and related to not uncommon advertising:

“The home page featured text that stated “ … GUARANTEED GRADE, EVERY TIME We’re so confident you’ll love the work we produce, we guarantee the final grade of the work. Unlike others, if your work doesn’t meet our exacting standards, you can claim a full refund … LOVED BY CUSTOMERS & THE GLOBAL PRESS UK Essays have lots of press coverage from all over the world confirming that a 2:1 piece of work produced by us met this standard … We were the first company in the world to offer you guaranteed 2:1 and 1st class work”.

Additional information about the service was included on pages titled ‘WORLD CLASS GUARANTEES’ and ‘UK ESSAYS IN THE PRESS’.

The QAA asserted that:

The advert was misleading, because they believed it did not make sufficiently clear the risks associated with submitting purchased essays; and

The references to the press coverage that UK essays received misleadingly implied that they had received positive coverage or endorsement from those press outlets.

The ASA considered that consumers would expect from the advert that they could submit purchased essays as their own that would meet the ordered grade without risks, which was not the case. They therefore concluded that the advert was misleading and the complaint was upheld. Furthermore, the ASA considered that the manner in which the quotes were presented was likely to give an overall impression that UK Essays received positive reviews or coverage from the sources referred to and again the complaint was upheld.

Interestingly, in relation to the point made on press coverage above, when accessed on the 16 July 2019, there is a quote on the UK Essays website on the ‘press coverage’ tab from The Guardian newspaper (a quality UK broadsheet). It reads “if you consider that the difference between a 2.1 and a 2.2 can be thousands of pounds on your starting salary, the incentives are obvious ”. This quote may suggest that using the services of UK Essays has a value. The quote is taken from a Boris Johnson article in 2006 (Johnson, 2006 written before his elevation to UK Prime minister) in which he refers to ‘ cheats ’ and that it makes him feel ‘ queasy ’.

As UK Essays stated in its response to the ASA investigation, the original press publications are readily available on their press coverage tab. However, the Boris Johnson article is available at the very end of the page, in much less bold text. Arguably, it is harder to find than other articles. The article is entitled ‘ the unbearable triteness of cheating’ . The quote they have used certainly does not seem to match the general tone of the article and a customer might think that UK Essays had received a positive review in this article.

The ASA explicitly directed UK Essays to stop presenting advertisements from press coverage and other published sources in a manner that was not reflective of the tone and content of those sources. This may not have been acted upon.

There has been another QAA referral in relation to the advertising by Essay Writing Services UK. The ASA ruling against Thoughtbridge Consulting Ltd. was delivered on 7.11.2018 (ASA 2019 a). The similar issue of being able to submit the essay as your own essay was flagged, as well the grade guarantee advertisement.

“ the home page included text on the home page which stated “Get the grades you Need and Achieve More Today! … GRADE GUARANTEE Get the grade you ordered first time, or your money back Plagiarism Free, Free plagiarism report with every order … Only for you The work you order will never be re-used or re-sold ”.

It was asserted that:

“Get the grade you ordered”, “Plagiarism free” and “The work you order will never be re-used or re-sold” misleadingly implied that consumers could hand the essay in as their own; and

“Grade guarantee Get the grade you ordered” was misleading and could be substantiated.

The ASA considered that consumers would expect that they could submit purchased essays as their own without risks from the advert, which was not the case. They therefore concluded that the ad was misleading and the claim was upheld. Furthermore, they considered that whilst the information was available on the “Guarantees page”, consumers could go through the process of purchasing an essay without being given this detailed information, and therefore it could be overlooked. It was further considered that it was not clear to consumers that the claim “Grade guarantee “Get the grade you ordered first time, or your money back” meant that if the consumer paid to have their work marked by Essay Writing Service UK and did not achieve the indicated grade they were eligible for a refund, rather than that if they handed in the essay they purchased it would achieve the grade for which they had paid. Therefore, the ASA concluded that the claim was misleading.

In our research the terms and conditions on Essay Writing Services UK could not be accessed. It is assumed one would have to put ‘additional info’ in on the order page to get to the terms and conditions. Given the fact it is hard to find any trace of any terms and conditions, it is considered that this would be an impediment for a student who is not actively looking for them.

The most recent ruling by the ASA was delivered on 9 January 2019 against The Oxbridge Research Group Ltd., known commonly as Oxbridge Essays (ASA 2019 b). There were two separate issues, both being upheld. The website included claims on the home page which stated “With Oxbridge Essays, it has never been easier to get the grades you’ve always wanted … First class? 2:1? No problem. We work with over 1,900 of the UK’s best academics to make sure you get the grade you want … Get better grades We’ll send you the product you have ordered on your chosen delivery date - it’s that simple ”. Further text on a page headed “Dissertation writing services ” stated “We put the time and effort into making every piece of work we write the best it can be - and the results speak for themselves … Your dissertation will include everything your university requires: introduction, research question, chapter outlines, literature review, methodology, analysis, recommendations and conclusion … Whatever standard you choose, we guarantee the work will be to that standard … Oxbridge-educated academics The vast majority of our writers have studied or taught at the UK’s two best universities, Oxford and Cambridge”.

The ad misleadingly implied that students could submit an essay they bought as their own; and

The claim “The vast majority of our writers have studied or taught at the UK’s two best universities, Oxford and Cambridge” was misleading and could be substantiated.

The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the advert that they could submit purchased essays as their own without risks, and the website did not make sufficiently clear that was not the case, concluding that the advert was misleading and the claim was upheld. They also considered that consumers would interpret the claim ‘the vast majority of our writers have studied or taught at the UK’s two best universities Oxford and Cambridge” to mean that almost all of the writers who wrote for Oxbridge Essays had either completed a degree or taught at either Oxford or Cambridge universities. Given the fact only 71% of the writers had either studied or taught at Oxford or Cambridge, it was considered not to be sufficient to meet consumers expectation based on the advertising claim, that almost all writers had a degree from, or had taught at, one of those universities, and that it was more likely than not that an essay would be written by a writer from one of those universities. The ASA therefore concluded that the claim was misleading and again the claim was upheld.

Given the potential consequences of continuing to operate as usual in the context of the change in the law relating to the legal test of dishonesty and the ASA rulings it is reasonable to assume that a fundamental change to the business model of Essay Mills and the terms and conditions under which they operate would be evident. We therefore sought to assess and test this assumption by revisiting and expanding earlier research.

Have essay Mills changed their business model?

In the first 2017 article, the commonly observed practises of some UK based essay-writing companies along with their terms and conditions of supply were compared to sections 1–7 the UK Fraud Act 2006 to determine whether or not these companies were committing an offence under these sections of the Act.

Twenty six sites operated by 21 apparently distinct companies were analysed; each had separate listings at UK Companies House. The identity of the specific companies were not included for publication for the following reasons: 1. not wanting to further advertise the services of these companies, either through publication or through any publicity associated with it. 2. there was no guarantee that the company number given on these websites was actually that of the company which ran the site. In some cases, the names were the same but in others this was not the case. 3. The content of the article was academic opinion and not the basis for legal proceedings. We have adopted the same principle in this article.

In July 2016, the websites of those companies (Table  1 ) were accessed to address a series of questions), which would then allow for consideration of the relevant sections of the Fraud Act. Questions were addressed by one author with cross checking by another. Table 1 is reprinted for ease of reference and comparison with new data.

In July 2019, we adopted the same methodology described above when updating results for the purposes of this article. The websites of those companies were accessed to address a series of questions (Table  2 ) which would then allow us to consider the relevant sections of the Fraud Act. Questions were addressed by one author with cross checking by a second. For the final question, “Is the advertising potentially misleading (compared to disclaimer/terms + conditions)?”, the authors considered the advertising to be misleading if it (for example) gave an overall impression that work purchased from the site could be submitted as if it were a student’s own work, without citing the company. A similar approach has also recently been adopted by the ASA, as we discuss below.

Our main conclusion is that UK registered essay mills have not significantly altered their terms and conditions since July 2016. However, there are some differences of note.

Six websites have either been taken down or not accessible since the original research, which explains the fewer number of sites considered by our current research.

There has been an increase in the number of websites which we consider to be misleading (gives the overall impression that work purchased from the site could be submitted as if it were a student’s own work) having regard to advice given in the ASA rulings: a rise from 31% to 68%. This is significant for our discussion on behaviours that might be objectively considered dishonest that follows later in this article.

As previously noted Essay Mills have a disclaimer in their terms of use on the website or in their terms and conditions. However, during our current research some terms and conditions could not be easily found, or personal details had to be registered in order to gain ‘additional info’ where it is assumed that terms and conditions are located. This too is an apparent change in practice and the reason for the percentage reduction in the tables from 100% to 88%.

The plagiarism free guarantee and qualified writer guarantee are inducements that these websites continue to deploy but again with a notable reduction in relation to the plagiarism free guarantee (100% offer down to 84%).

There is a reduction in the number of sites that allow a student to specify a grade. The reason for this may be explained by the fact that some companies guarantee a particular quality but not a grade. It would be inappropriate to characterise this as a ‘grade guarantee’.

A point of note is that there is now one website which no longer offers academic writing. It only provides free essays and the terms and conditions specifically state that they no longer offer academic writing services. This might be attributable to the impact of the ASA rulings. It is certainly a welcome development.

Changes in practice due to ASA rulings

The issues identified by the ASA in relation to Essay Mill websites are not unique to the UK and will have much in common with sites in other jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland.

Our Findings from Table 2 note that have been changes and we have sought to contextualise these changes having regard to the key issues identified by the ASA. Therefore Table  3 identifies the key issues addressed by the ASA in their rulings against the three essay mills noted above. We have looked at the current content of all the UK registered websites researched (so far as we able to do so) and questioned whether they clearly adopt the spirit or intention of the rulings of the ASA. We offer a reminder at this point that our interpretation is academic opinion and not a basis for further action by the ASA or otherwise.

The ASA considered it critical that Essay Mills should make it clear to customers at the point of order that they cannot submit purchased work as their own without risks. Our review indicates that this crucial recommendation has not been adopted in the manner intended (bringing this to the attention of students at point of purchase) and that the companies continue to rely on their terms and conditions to avoid liability or to carry key injunctions in areas of the website away from the order page (and therefore potentially unread by a purchaser) whilst also using familiar inducements in relation to guarantees and press coverage but in a revised format.

In our academic opinion, UK registered Essay Mills may be non-compliant in varying degrees with the ASA guidance in their current format as Table 3 demonstrates. If so and having regard to the change in the law relating to the legal test of dishonesty the question arises whether or not Essay Mills are operating in a dishonest manner.

Are essay Mills operating dishonestly?

The first point to note that although the majority of UK registered Essay Mills may have a website or advertising considered misleading for the purposes of advertising standards this does not of itself necessarily amount to dishonest behaviour for the purposes of the Fraud Act.

Essay Mill websites in the UK continue to provide familiar guarantees, for example, ‘100% plagiarism free’ and they do not appear to prioritise on their order page a clear warning that that the essay should not be submitted as the customers’ own work. Some websites draw attention to ‘model answers’ or are to be used ‘to inspire one’s own work’. However, this warning is not given prominence. Many outline this important injunction in the FAQ section or refer to it once in a small part of the home page. Having regard to the ASA rulings, such critical warnings should appear on the order page so that the student can clearly see it before committing to purchase. Does a failure to do so matter?

The answer is Yes. Although not inherently dishonest the above would be factors to be taken into account when making an objective finding of dishonesty. It should be remembered that any finding will depend upon the facts of and evidence available in any particular case.

Removing the entirely subjective second part of the two-stage test of dishonesty removes or at least lessens the possibility that an Essay Mill of questionable moral standing with their own personal code of honesty will escape liability under the Fraud Act. The key question then is would the behaviour and practice of an Essay Mill in a particular case be considered dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

The answer to this question will depend not simply on terms and conditions of business or nuanced judgements as to the overall ‘misleading’ tone of the website. Significant weight will be attached to the direct inducements and ‘chat’ that often takes place between students and Essay Mill prior to purchase as to how the student may use the essay. It can be said with some certainty that statements or ‘chat’ as to permitted use or other inducements which contradict terms and conditions of business are likely to be viewed as dishonest. We tentatively suggest that the change in the law of dishonesty which took place at the end of 2017 does not appear to have had a significant impact on the terms and conditions of UK registered Essay Mills as evidenced by Tables  2 and 3 above.

However a cautionary note is that the test in Ivey takes into account the defendant’s knowledge and belief, and therefore it is not a straightforward objective test and an outcome of a finding of dishonesty is not therefore entirely certain.

Whilst dishonesty is important for establishing the section 2 offence, another option that could be used to prosecute Essay Mills is Section 7 of the Fraud Act which makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. Section 8 extends the meaning of “article” so as to include any program or data held in electronic form. This should include an essay stored or supplied electronically by an Essay Mill. For a section 7 offence to be committed dishonesty on the part of the Essay Mill is not required, only knowledge of or an intention to commit or facilitate fraud will suffice.

“Knowledge” in Section 7 (1) (a) is a strict requirement although in practice, the use to which the article (essay) can be put is likely to provide sufficient evidence of the Essay Mills state of mind. Furthermore, as noted above, the publicity and media attention over student use of supplied essays would lead to a reasonable conclusion that an Essay Mill has relevant knowledge for the purposes of the offence ie that the student will beyond doubt submit it is as their own work.

However, the manufacture of articles (essays) that are capable of being used in or in connection with fraud but have other innocent uses (eg study aids tutoring or proof reading services) will probably not fall foul of this section unless the manufacturer intends that the essays should be used in a dishonest way (Section 7 (1) (b)). The terms and conditions of business will mitigate against the commission of an offence as essays are usually required to be used in a legitimate manner although again publicity in connection with how students are actually used and some of the advertising used by some of the Essay Mills may mean that s.7 is a viable prosecution option particularly again having regard to the ‘chat’ and other inducements prior to purchase noted above.

The key issue here relating to a guilty mind is that liability under s.7 depends on knowledge and intention rather than dishonesty. Does this matter? We have noted above that Ivey takes into account the defendant’s knowledge and belief in concluding whether or not dishonesty exists so the concept of knowledge is as important for section 2 as it is for section 7 of the Act.

So, what is knowledge for the purposes of the criminal law? Stephen Shute, ( 2002 ) states that all (criminal) offences which incorporate ‘knowledge’ of a specified proposition as a necessary element for their commission appear to require that the ‘known’ proposition be true. Shute also makes reference to the doctrine of wilful blindness, set out in Roper v Taylor’s Garage (1951 2 TLR 284, supported by R v Hall, 1985 81 Cr App 260), which suggested that ‘shutting one’s eyes to an obvious means of knowledge or deliberately refraining from making inquiries, the result of which the person does not care to have’ is in law ‘actual knowledge’. When supplying an essay does an Essay Mill refrain from making inquiries as to its use because they do not want to hear the answer that it will be used as a submission for an assessment – particularly given the common knowledge that must now exist as to likely use?

Deliberately not asking the question because you might not like the answer can be distinguished from merely neglecting to make inquiries. Neglecting to make inquiries is not knowledge (i.e. not asking a student what they intend to do with the essay will not amount to knowledge of the student’s intention to submit the essay as their own if they do so).

However, Shute concludes that the doctrine of wilful blindness is and should be treated as anomalous, he makes reference to the decision in R v Moys, (1984, 79 Cr App R 72) which seems to confirm that suspicion, even great suspicion, should not be held equivalent to belief. A belief must be correct in order to be considered knowledge. Otherwise, the exact definition of knowledge is not certain, and allows for flexibility depending on the context of the offence it is applied to.

Therefore, it is unclear what level of knowledge is required to establish criminal liability and it is unclear whether the doctrine of wilful blindness (I didn’t ask whether the student was going to submit the purchased essay and therefore I didn’t ‘know’ as my terms and conditions state that a student must not take this action) could be applied to knowledge in a criminal context.

This all means that liability under the first limb of section 7 for writing or supplying an essay for use in connection with fraud may be difficult to establish in relation to an Essay Mill although each case would turn on its own facts and in particular the ‘chat’ that may have taken place between the Essay Mill and student before or at the time of transacting in relation to the use of the essay.

Section 7 in its second limb relies upon intention (an intention that the essay be used in connection with fraud) as the basis of liability. R v Woollin (1999 1 AC 82) sets out the generally accepted definition for intention. It has been accepted that intention means either acting to bring about a particular result or acting in the face of the acknowledged virtual certainty that a particular result will come about (direct/indirect intention). However, Lord Steyn clearly states that “it does not follow that ‘intent’ necessarily has precisely the same meaning in every context in the criminal law. This means that intention may be taken to mean something other than purpose/foresight of virtual certainty in other contexts, such as under the Fraud Act. The key question here is whether or not Essay Mills intend an essay be used by a student in submission for an assessment.

In the context of media and other attention and the information required from students in relation to grade and essay title, then whilst arguably Essay Mills are wilfully shutting their eyes to the obvious it is by no means certain that there is sufficient proof for criminal liability under the second limb of section 7 on the basis that they intended the submission of the essay by the student. Their terms and conditions say something very differently but again, each case would turn on its own facts and the ‘chat’ that may have taken place between the Essay Mill and student before or at the time of transacting in relation to the use of the essay. These evidentiary challenges in relation to knowledge and intention are likely to mitigate against a prosecuting authority taking action under section 7 of the Fraud Act 2006.

Is criminal prosecution likely?

We have demonstrated that recent legal rulings make it easier to impute the knowledge of human agents to corporate Essay Mills and the context of QAA guidance and ASA rulings, as well as associated media attention, may assist in making a finding of dishonesty under the revised objective Ivey test in relation to the Fraud Act more likely. We have also demonstrated that other offences requiring knowledge and intention may be brought into play having regard to the chat and inducements that frequently occur prior to student purchase although the evidentiary challenges remain significant hurdles.

Furthermore action under the Fraud Act is on a case-by-case basis and requires the Crown Prosecution Service to bring a prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Rervice is a UK government agency employing lawyers who are responsible for examining police evidence, deciding whether to take criminal proceedings through to court prosecution stage and preparing cases for court and conducting prosecutions.

There are still a number of practical obstacles and questions to the use of the Fraud Act. The competing priorities of the Crown Prosecution Service is one such obstacle. An academic marking an essay becomes suspicious that a student has used an Essay Mill, does that academic become an investigator of a possible criminal offence? Should staff now call the police? How long would a case take and what would happen to the students and staff in the meantime? Where and how would evidence be collected; Does a university virtual learning environment become a crime scene? Many of these questions and practicalities arise because when the Fraud Act is applied; it would necessarily involve the student concerned and staff in determining whether there was a prima facie case and subsequently a successful prosecution.

These practical and evidential obstacles will militate against a criminal prosecution. If criminal prosecutions are unlikely due to practical and evidential challenges then these difficulties support the creation of a new criminal offence that is directed at the supply side and not the student demand side of the business model of Essay Mills.

Argument for a new law

For all of the above reasons, we maintain that a change in the law is required and that the central argument of the article ‘ A legal approach to tackling contract cheating? holds good.

Draper and Newton ( 2017 ) detailed a draft law, which could be used to outlaw the provision and advertising of essay writing services and would address the limitations identified above by targeting contract cheating at source; the Essay Mills themselves. This proposed new criminal offence relies on the legal principle of ‘Strict Liability’, which would simply make it an offence to offer contract cheating services, regardless of dishonesty, knowledge or intent.

There remains a strong public interest in ensuring that (for example) the doctor, engineer or lawyer has obtained their qualifications via learning they undertook themselves rather than bought from an Essay Mill. Essay Mills should not be able to obfuscate that ‘the terms and conditions say students should only use our bespoke custom written plagiarism-free guaranteed grade assignments as a ‘reference work.’

Strict Liability would ensure that the following is an offence:

“completing for financial gain or financial reward in whole or in part an assignment or any other work that a student enrolled at a Higher Education provider is required to complete as part of a Higher Education course in their stead without authorisation from those making the requirement”.

This principle would be extended to include the arrangement and advertising of such services. A Strict Liability offence would reverse the burden of proof and place the cost of the defence on the Essay Mill – a mill would be guilty of a criminal offence by mere fact of supply unless they establish a defence which is a much stronger deterrent and an provides an easier route to prosecution.

To establish a defence of due diligence we suggest that an Essay Mill would as a minimum have to remove plagiarism free guarantees, cease writing to a specific title and grade and give a clear warning at the point of purchase as to permitted use of the essay and the risks of failing to comply. All pre-purchase chat and reassurances as to use which contradict terms and conditions of business would have to end. An Essay Mill might even be required to submit the essay to a database which could be searched by text matching software of the type used by educational institutions and advise a student purchaser that this would be done.

Recent research published by Newton ( 2018 ) in Frontiers in Education, demonstrates that Essay Mills continue to thrive with students continuing to use their services. Anna McKie writing in the Times Higher Education (Mckie 2018 ), notes that UK registered essay mills wilfully continue to trade as:

“ … … essay mills are not illegal in the UK – as the UK Essays website points out, ‘we would have been shut down a long time ago’ if they were … …

The article by Draper and Newton ( 2017 ) was the only research cited to the then UK Education Minister in a 2018 letter signed by over 40 Vice Chancellors of UK Universities, calling for Essay Mills to be banned by the law.

Australia is seeking to pass new legislation (Amigud & Dawson 2019 ) and the Republic of Ireland has recently done so. Both countries operate similar criminal offences in relation to fraud as the UK and both have elected to adopt new legislation to combat Essay Mills because of the challenges faced with using existing fraud laws.

The Republic of Ireland passed an Amendment Bill in July 2019, which introduces changes to the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012. Section 43A of the Amendment Bill will provide a statutory basis for the prosecution of those who facilitate cheating by learners; who advertise cheating services and who publish advertisements for cheating services.

The Amendment Bill does not directly provide for extraterritorial effect but will enable conversations with platforms such as Google and Facebook that continuing to host ‘marketing’ and ‘advertising’ material for Essay Mills will be in breach of that platforms operational terms and conditions in relation to posting illegal material. Indirectly therefore extraterritorial effect is achieved.

In circumstances in which Essay Mills frequently operate across national boundaries this indirect outcome and the in-principle support offered by Jetvia v Bilta (2015) for the creation of an offence that has extra-territorial effect will alleviate concerns over displacement and off-shoring of Essay Mill services.

The continued complexities of the Fraud Act: the precise nature of the new objective test of dishonesty, the meaning of knowledge and intention for the purpose of certain offences and the application of these concepts alongside the terms and conditions of Essay Mill websites and the direct marketing and ‘chat’ to which students are subjected (often contradicting key terms and conditions), are strong arguments for bespoke legislation that avoids these complexities through utlilising the principle of strict liability in order to address contract cheating for financial gain. This is particularly the case if we are to avoid students being the subject of criminal prosecution (students could be caught by the revised test of dishonesty and thus commit fraud through submission of a purchased essay) and in order to focus the resource and attention of prosecuting authorities on Essay Mills.

Although welcome, we have also demonstrated through Tables 2 and 3 , that the ASA rulings have not significantly changed the behaviours of UK registered Essay Mills. The only reasonable conclusion is that if we are to stop the activity of Essay Mills in the UK then we have to adopt the solution hinted at by UK Essays 2018 website – we have to make their services illegal.

We therefore submit that not taking action to create a new bespoke offence targeting Essay Mills in the UK in relation to contract cheating for financial gain and the advertising of such services is no longer an option.

Availability of data and materials

The original research data upon which the Tables in this article are based is held by the Lead Author. The data will not be shared for the following reasons:

1. The data is based on academic opinion of publicly accessible documentation linked to UK registered companies. 2. We do not want to further advertise the services of these companies, either through publication or through any publicity associated with it. 3. We had no guarantee that the company number given on these websites is actually that of the company which runs the site. 4. The content of our article is academic opinion and not the basis for legal or other proceedings.

Abbreviations

Advertising Standards Authority

Crown Prosecution Service

Quality Assurance Agency

Amigud A, Dawson P (2019) The law and the outlaw: is legal prohibition a viable solution to the contract cheating problem? Asses Eval Higher Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1612851

Article   Google Scholar  

ASA (2018) Advertising Standards Authority Ruling on Complaint Ref: A17-4. Retrieved November 23, 2019, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/all-answers-ltd-a17-394574.html

Google Scholar  

ASA (2019a) Advertising Standards Authority Ruling on Complaint Ref: A18 -7 . Retrieved November 23, 2019, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/thoughtbridge-consulting-ltd-a18-452244.html

ASA (2019b) Advertising Standards Authority Ruling on Complaint Ref: A18-10. Retrieved November 23, 2019, from https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-oxbridge-research-group-ltd-a18-458914.html

Draper MJ, Ibezim V, Newton PM (2017) Are Essay Mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 Fraud Act (UK). Int J Educ Integrity 13(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0014-5

Draper MJ, Newton PM (2017) A legal Approach to tackling contract cheating. Int J Educ Integrity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0022-5

Johnson, B. (2006) ‘The unbearable triteness of cheating’. In The Guardian October 17 2006 Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/oct/17/highereducationuk

McKie, A. 2018. ‘Can Universities beat contract cheating?. In Times Higher Education September 13 2018 Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/can-universities-beat-contract-cheating

Newton PM (2018) How Common Is Commercial Contract Cheating in Higher Education and Is It Increasing? A Systematic Review. Front Educ. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00067

QAA. (2016) ‘Plagiarism in Higher Education - Custom Essay Writing Services: An Exploration and next Steps for the UK Higher Education Sector’

QAA (2017) “Contracting to Cheat in Higher Education – How to Address Contract Cheating, the Use of Third-Party Services and Essay Mills”

Shute S, Simester AP (2002) Criminal Law Theory. Oxford University Press; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261387500013234

UK Government E (1986) Insolvency Act 1986 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/contents . Accessed 23 Nov 2019

UK Government E (2006) Fraud Act 2006 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents . Accessed 23 Nov 2019

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Hannah Hutchison a law student intern in 2018 to the investigation of essay mill websites and background law upon which the data in this article is based.

Originality and review status

The authors confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Not applicable. There are no sources of funding for the research reported.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law, Swansea University, Singleton Park Campus, Swansea, UK

Michael J. Draper & Callum Reid-Hutchings

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors are solely responsible for this article. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. This article was written by the lead author with support from the second author who undertook the most current primary investigation of the essay mill websites upon which the data in this article is based. The methodology is described in the main body of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Draper .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Draper, M.J., Reid-Hutchings, C. Are essay mills committing fraud? A further analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 fraud act (UK). Int J Educ Integr 15 , 11 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0050-4

Download citation

Received : 06 August 2019

Accepted : 04 December 2019

Published : 26 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0050-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Contract cheating
• Fraud essay mill

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

UK ‘falling behind’ in essay mills fight without legislation

As ireland reports success from ban on advertising, campaigners say uk risks reputation of its degrees by not following suit.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

The UK risks jeopardising the integrity of its degrees unless it follows in the footsteps of other countries that have outlawed advertisements for essay mills, experts have said.

Previous education secretaries and higher education ministers had indicated their increasing concern about the growing market in essay mills after a 2018 paper found that it was likely that as many as one in seven recent graduates worldwide had engaged in contract cheating.

However, Times Higher Education understands that there are no current plans to introduce legislation in the UK, in contrast to the Republic of Ireland, which has passed a law banning advertising by essay-writing services, and Australia, which is proposing to outlaw contract cheating itself.

“We thought we were on the way to something. But aside from increased guidance and media attention, we haven’t got anywhere,” said Michael Draper, professor of legal studies at Swansea University , offering his assessment of the British situation.

In 2018, Sam Gyimah, who was then universities minister, said legislative options “were not off the table” after more than 40 higher education leaders called for the government to introduce a ban. In March 2019, the education minister, then Damian Hinds, said it was time to “stamp out essay mills” and called on PayPal to stop processing their payments.

However, Professor Draper has since published research on how the increased publicity and governmental pressure had changed the behaviour of essay mill companies. The findings, published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity , concluded that there had been no change.

“We’ve been having this conversation for years, but without legislation that disrupts their business model in the UK, why would [essay mills] behave any differently?” he said. “The UK is supposed to be a global leader in higher education – we must be able to guarantee the quality of our degree awards – but I fear the government’s attention is elsewhere.”

In July 2019, a private member’s bill was laid before Parliament by Lord Storey, the Liberal Democrat education spokesman in the House of Lords, that would have made it an offence to advertise cheating services for higher education assessments in England and Wales. However, Parliament was then prorogued, halting further progress.

According to Thomas Lancaster, a senior teaching fellow at Imperial College London , “the legal movement in the UK has completely stalled, and we are falling a long way behind countries like Australia, Ireland and Montenegro”.

“The key legislative approach we have to make is to stop firms being allowed to advertise to students within the UK. The advertising is blatant, persuasive, and students can’t avoid it. We need to make it as difficult as possible for contract cheating firms to do business,” he said.

Deirdre Stritch, approval and monitoring manager at Quality and Qualifications Ireland, which enforces the country’s legislation, said that the law had already passed “obvious measures of success” and that 13 adverts had been removed since it came into force last November.

The legislation also prompted work that will allow universities to block essay mills’ websites from their servers and has led to the creation of the academic integrity network.

It has not only disrupted the business model of essay mills but also “commenced a coordinated, concerted national conversation on this topic and given impetus to move at a quicker pace”, Dr Stritch said.

A Department for Education spokeswoman said that the UK government was clear it was “simply unethical for online essay writing companies to profit from a dishonest business which exploits young people”.

“We have…called on online giants to block payments and advertisements for these services,” she said. “We are not ruling out legislating, but there are a number of obstacles to eliminating essay mills through legislation, and we are working with the sector on effective ways of tackling this problem.”

[email protected]

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

Many university staff back prosecuting students over essay mills

THE survey finds support among academics for harsher punishments for students, following paper that reports ‘surprising’ level of support for criminalising users of contract cheating services

Irish law to clamp down on essay mills ‘could be model for UK’

Irish bill criminalising the provision and advertising of cheating services could hit Google and Facebook, experts predict

Reader's comments (7)

You might also like.

‘We’re on the wrong side of AI partnership’: technology and the future of learning

If AI is to transform education, assessment must be rebooted and developers must make leaps in understanding the learning process, experts say. Rosa Ellis reports

Critical thinking is the silver bullet for AI-proofing students

Chris Rock’s joke about US gun control exemplifies a cognitive sophistication that machines will struggle to match, say Akhil Bhardwaj and Anastasia Sergeeva

Degree apprenticeship focus ‘constrains HE-industry engagement’

‘Highly focused and narrow policy interventions’ such as the £3.5 billion-a-year apprenticeship levy have held back wider engagement between academia and industry, says critical report

New Zealand universities ‘losing money’ on crucial subjects

State must step in, according to submissions to major university review

Featured jobs

QAA has updated its  cookie policy . We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on this website. This includes third-party cookies that may track your use of this website. To confirm you are happy with our use of cookies, please click Accept to continue. You can  change your settings  at any time.

QAA publishes new guidance to help tackle the use of essay mills

QAA has today published new guidance for UK higher education providers  to help them protect academic integrity and combat the use of essay mills in their institutions.

Essay mills are commercial entities that make money by encouraging students to cheat. While some are based in the UK, they are a global phenomenon impacting on higher education systems and providers around the world. Their use has the potential to damage the reputation of UK higher education. Typically, they will charge a student to write their assessment, which the student will then submit as their own work. They will often use sophisticated marketing techniques, and some will resort to blackmail or extortion once students have used their services. Research indicates their use by students has increased in recent years (such as published by Swansea University  and Channel 4 ).

Contracting to Cheat: How to Address Essay Mills and Contract Cheating , which is published with the support of governments across the UK, shows that many UK higher education institutions have designed effective institutional strategies and academic integrity practices to educate staff, support students, reduce opportunities to cheat and detect academic misconduct. However, more needs to be done.

Key findings and recommendations are:

• Identifying a strategic lead with responsibility for staff training and institutional coordination can help improve detection of essay mill use.
• Assessment design can help reduce opportunities to cheat, but no assessment should ever be considered cheat proof.
• Technology can help detect the use of essay mills, but is most effective when used by experienced staff with knowledge of the student.
• Essay mill marketing seeks to exploit students who are feeling vulnerable or anxious, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Effective institutional and peer support can help.
• Staff and students should be aware of, or be able to easily access, information and procedures to follow to report a suspicion of academic misconduct.

The guidance has been written following extensive consultation with universities, colleges, expert academics and students from across the UK. It updates earlier guidance with new advice, intelligence and good practice in response to the ever-evolving threat of essay mills.

Douglas Blackstock, QAA CEO, said : 'The essay mill industry has become increasingly sophisticated, and exists to make money by encouraging students to cheat. Students at every university or college in the UK will be targeted by them. In developing this guidance we’ve been encouraged by the many examples of innovation and effective practice in place to combat academic misconduct. A sector-wide response, working with governments and regulators, can help us get on the front foot in putting an end to the contract cheating industry'.

Universities Minister Michelle Donelan said: 'This is a difficult time for students, and those who are feeling particularly worried about their studies could be more vulnerable to essay mills marketing right now. It is abhorrent for these companies to take advantage of students in this situation and profit from anxiety during a global pandemic.

'I know universities are working hard to respond to coronavirus, to continue delivering their courses and supporting students. I hope this guidance, along with innovations in technology, will help them protect the integrity of our world-leading higher education and prevent students turning to contract cheating'.

Richard Lochhead, Scotland’s Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science said:  'Protecting the integrity of our higher education sector is vital and we must be vigilant in cracking down on those who actively engage in academic misconduct. I welcome the new guidance published by QAA which will help our institutions combat the use of essay mills, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic'.

Kirsty Williams, Wales’ Minister for Education said: 'I welcome the publication of this new guidance from QAA to help our higher education sector combat the pernicious effects of contract cheating and essay mills. In Wales and across the UK we pride ourselves on the integrity of our higher education institutions, and we cannot allow that to be undermined by predatory essay mill companies which often exploit the most vulnerable students.

I hope that universities in Wales consider this guidance carefully and take further steps, in partnership with HEFCW and students’ unions, to reduce the opportunities and incentives for students to cheat, particularly during the challenging circumstances that have been created by Covid-19'. Related information In March, we published a Blog entitled  Innovative Steps in Tackling Contract Cheating at the University of Northampton , written by Dr Robin Crockett, Reader in Data Analysis and University Lead on Contract-Cheating at the University of Northampton. More about our work in this area, including the Academic Integrity Advisory Group and all publications and guidance, can be found in the Academic Integrity section of our website .

Essay Mills and Contract Cheating from a Legal Point of View

• First Online: 27 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Michael Draper 7  

635 Accesses

12 Citations

This chapter provides an overview and analysis of the operation of essay mills and contract cheating from a legal point of view through the lens of some of the countries that have either adopted or are considering the adoption of legislation in relation to essay mills. This chapter considers the rationale for legislation in the Republic of Ireland and Australia and the arguments for legislation to be introduced in the United Kingdom with the differences between the various enactments and proposals considered in addition to the issues of enforcement of laws resulting from the operation of essay mills across borders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Contract Cheating in Canada: A Comprehensive Overview

“Legal and Illegal Work”

“When deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether evidence can be used in court and is reliable and credible, and there is no other material that might affect the sufficiency of [the] evidence. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ against each defendant” (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2018 ).

The QQI “is an independent State agency responsible for promoting quality and accountability in education and training services in Ireland. It was established in 2012 by the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012” (QQI, 2018 ).

Further statements suggested that “Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and, most recently, Ireland have already taken action to make essay mills illegal in their countries, and the Quality Assurance Agency has been in close contact with the countries that have banned essay mills to monitor the effect of the ban. The ban is already making a difference. In Australia, following legislation, the Edubirdie, EssayShark, and Custom Writings websites, for instance, now all state ‘Our service is not available in your region;’ yet, in contrast, they all still thrive in the UK” (Skidmore, 2021, as cited in UK Parliament—Hansard, 2021 ).

Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). (2015). 10. Strict and absolute liability. In ALRC (Ed.), Traditional rights and freedoms—Encroachments by commonwealth Laws final report (pp. 285–308). Fineline Print & Copy Service NSW.

Google Scholar  

Bean, D. (2019, November 7). Official information act request . New Zealand Qualifications Authority. https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Information-releases/OIA-releases/December-2019/Numbers-charged-under-s292E-of-the-Education-Act-1989-CR19687.pdf .

Blackstock, D., & McClaran, A. (2019, November 4). Memorandum of co-operation between the QAA, United Kingdom and the TEQSA, Australia . Australian Government - QAA. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/international/teqsa-qaa.pdf?sfvrsn=732df381_10

Brown, T. (2021, June 16). In focus: Higher education cheating services prohibition bill [HL] . UK Parliament – House of Lords Library. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/higher-education-cheating-services-prohibition-bill-hl/

Council of Europe. (2021a). About ETINED . https://www.coe.int/en/web/ethics-transparency-integrity-in-education/about-etined .

Council of Europe. (2021b). 2nd ETINED plenary session (2018) . https://www.coe.int/en/web/ethics-transparency-integrity-in-education/2nd-etined-plenary-session .

Department of Education and Skills. (2017, May 15). Bruton announces new powers for the higher and further education regulator . https://merrionstreet.ie/en/category-index/education/bruton_announces_new_powers_for_the_higher_and_further_education_regulator.125846.shortcut.html .

DLA Piper. (2021, July 12). Corporate: Incorporation process . https://www.dlapiperintelligence.com/goingglobal/corporate/index.html?t=06-incorporation-process .

Draper, M., Ibezim, V., & Newton, P. (2017). Are essay mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 fraud act. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13 (3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0014-5

Article   Google Scholar  

Draper, M. J., & Newton, P. M. (2017). A legal approach to tackling contract cheating? International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13 (11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0022-5

Draper, M. J., & Reid-Hutchings, C. (2019). Are essay mills committing fraud? A further analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 fraud act (UK). International Journal for Educational Integrity, 15 (11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-019-0050-4

Ellis, C., Zucker, I. M., & Randall, D. (2018). The infernal business of contract cheating: Understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0024-3

eolas Magazine. (2019, December). Clamping down on academic cheating in Ireland . https://www.eolasmagazine.ie/clamping-down-on-academic-cheating-in-ireland/

Ferguson, H. (2020, February 13). TEQSA (prohibiting academic cheating services) bill 2019. Bills digest, 2019–2020 (84), Parliament of Australia, Australia. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/7182391/upload_binary/7182391.pdf .

Fogarty, P. (n.d.). How students turn to ‘essay mills’ to help them cheat . BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190329-the-essay-mills-that-help-students-cheat

Hansard - UK Parliament. (2017, January 25). Higher education and research bill volume 778: Debated on Wednesday 25 January 2017. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-01-25/debates/B510EEDD-43EC-4FA9-8222-865249D8A3D2/HigherEducationAndResearchBill?highlight=contract%20cheating#contribution-968EC100-680F-438B-B16A-D4A9C7818DE8

House of Representatives - Commonwealth of Australia. (2020, June 12). Tertiary education quality and standards agency amendment (prohibiting academic cheating services) bill 2019 . https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/5d3da435-cd86-4b4d-ad95-255f2729535d/toc_pdf/House%20of%20Representatives_2020_06_12_7767_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22chamber/hansardr/5d3da435-cd86-4b4d-ad95-255f2729535d/0043%22 .

McKie, A. (2021, April 22). Australia warns UK over essay mills hacking university websites. Times Higher Education . https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/australia-warns-uk-over-essay-mills-hacking-university-websites .

New Zealand Education Act 2020 s. 393. E. (NZ). Retrieved from https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0038/latest/whole.html#LMS202497

New Zealand Education Act 1989 s. 292. E. (NZ).

O’Brien, C. (2017, May 12). Plan to prosecute firms who offer paid-for essays to students . Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/plan-to-prosecute-firms-who-offer-paid-for-essays-to-students-1.3007509 .

QQI. (2018). About Us . https://www.qqi.ie/Articles/Pages/About-Us.aspx

Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) (Amendment) Act 2019 (eISB) s. 43.A (IE.). Retrieved from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2019/act/32/section/15/enacted/en/html#sec15

Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTE). (2017, May 15). Bruton outlines bill to tackle cheating in education system . https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2017/0515/875195-bruton-bill-cheating/

Stritch, D. (2019, May 22). Lessons from abroad on developing effective legislation. Dr Deirdre Stritch, provider approval and monitoring manager, QQI awards, quality and qualifications Ireland. In Westminster Higher Education Forum (Ed.), Keynote seminar: Contract cheating in higher education - prevention, detection, disruption and legislative options (pp. 46–49). Westminster Higher Education Forum.

Stritch, D. (2021, March 18). Supporting academic integrity – A view from Ireland: ENQA: Protecting and promoting academic integrity: How quality assurance agencies can take action . QQI. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/Academic-Integrity-The-View-From-Ireland-March-2021.pdf

Taylor, J. (2021, July 7). University regulator tries to block Australian students from using alleged cheating website: [TEQSA] wants 51 internet service providers to block access to Assignmenthelp4you.com . The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/07/university-regulator-tries-to-block-australian-students-from-using-alleged-cheating-website-assignmenthelp4you-assignment-help-for-you

The Crown Prosecution Service. (2018, October 26). The code for crown prosecutors . https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors .

The Crown Prosecution Service. (2021, July 26). Jurisdiction . https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jurisdiction .

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives. (2019a). TEQSA amendment (prohibiting academic cheating services) bill 2019 No. 2019 (Education): A bill for an act to amend the TEQSA Act 2011, and for related purposes . https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6483_first-reps/toc_pdf/19257b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia House of Representatives. (2019b). TEQSA amendment (prohibiting academic cheating service) bill 2019: Explanatory memorandum . https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r6483_ems_d9f89ad0-f957-4e43-873a-bff12b21d878/upload_pdf/723541.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

UK Ministry of Justice Cabinet Office. (2015, December 2). Advice on introducing or amending criminal offences and estimating and agreeing implications for the criminal justice system . https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481126/creating-new-criminal-offences.pdf .

UK Parliament. (2020, June 4). Students: Plagiarism question for Department of Education. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-06-04/HL5328 .

UK Parliament – Hansard. (2021, February). Essay Mills (prohibition) volume 689: Debated on Wednesday 10 February 2021. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-02-10/debates/5E37B30F-EFD9-40A2-AA28-5D05327A7596/EssayMills(Prohibition)

Walsh, P., & McClaran, A. (2019, November 29). Memorandum of understanding between the TEQSA and the quality and qualifications Ireland (QQI). TEQSA - QQI. https://www.qqi.ie/Downloads/Memorandum%20of%20Understanding%20betwen%20QQI%20and%20TEQSA%20(Australia)%20-%2029%20Nov%202019.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law, University of Swansea, Swansea, Wales, UK

Michael Draper

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Draper .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Sarah Elaine Eaton

School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

Guy J. Curtis

The Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Brenda M. Stoesz

Law School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

Joseph Clare

Discipline of Psychology and School of Law, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia

Kiata Rundle

Academic Integrity & Copyright, Assiniboine Community College, Brandon, MB, Canada

Josh Seeland

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Draper, M. (2022). Essay Mills and Contract Cheating from a Legal Point of View. In: Eaton, S.E., Curtis, G.J., Stoesz, B.M., Clare, J., Rundle, K., Seeland, J. (eds) Contract Cheating in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12680-2_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12680-2_4

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-12679-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-12680-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Accessibility Tools
• Current Students
• The University
• Our Faculties
• Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
• Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law

Academic cheating using online essay mills is “posing a significant threat to the integrity of higher education”.

• Undergraduate Programmes
• Postgraduate Taught Programmes
• Professional Courses
• Research Programmes
• Year Abroad
• Swansea Law Clinic
• Centre for Professional Legal Practice

On November 14 th , Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) invited senior leaders of Higher Education Institutions to the launch of the National Academic Integrity Network in Dublin, Ireland. Professor Michael Draper from the Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law at Swansea provided expert opinion as a keynote speaker.

In July, President Michael D. Higgins signed into law a new bill, which provides a statutory basis for the criminal prosecution of those who facilitate cheating by learners, who advertise cheating services, and who publish advertisements for cheating.

The QQI acknowledged that Professor Draper had advised in connection with the drafting of the legislation. In acknowledgement of this, Professor Draper congratulated the QQI on their work and outcome, which has resulted in the first law of its kind in Western Europe, promoting ethical behaviour in education and directly challenging those that promote education fraud.

Speaking about the new law, Professor Draper said:

“Academic cheating using online ‘essay mills’ is posing a significant threat to the integrity of global higher education.

‘The new anti-cheating laws which came into effect in Ireland last week, making it illegal to provide or advertise cheating services or to publish ads promoting them, will change the conversation that Institutions have with their students and will enable legal action against the suppliers of essays and those that support them. Purchasing an essay is academic misconduct; it is also taking part in a criminal offence.

“Hopefully the UK will soon follow Ireland’s lead”.

In 2018, senior leaders in education in the UK wrote to the UK Government demanding that a law be introduced banning essay mills, citing research by Professor Michael Draper and Professor Phil Newton.

Professor Draper will continue advising on the matter and will present alongside Dr Deidre Stritch of the QQI at the Council of Europe in Prague later this month.

Share Story

• Wednesday 27 November 2019 12:31 GMT
• Celine Smyth
• [email protected]
• 01792513476