"lawyer" asked for precedents in the now-closed thread. I managed to find one:

"...in 2014 a self-proclaimed faith
healer and shaman, Juliette D’Souza (who also used several aliases), was convicted of 23 counts of
obtaining property by deception and fraud by false representation between 1998 and 2010. Victims
reported she had claimed spiritual powers and healing skills, yet in court D’Souza denied she had
ever made such claims. However the prosecution had a strong case and she was sentenced to 10
years imprisonment. HHJ Karsten QC noted this was one of the worst cases of confidence fraud he
had encountered, and that a maximum term of ten years is insufficient.54 Although courts do not
like to adjudicate on issues of religion, faith or belief, these cases were successfully prosecuted by
focusing on the areas of criminality – be it, in these cases, sexual abuse, physical abuse or
confidence fraud."

( http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62296/1/Religion_in_England_.pdf )

Reading several commentaries on Tom's particular case showed one point the commentators continually missed...

They all insisted that the courts would stay out of determining whether religious claims were true or not. The point they missed? The Fraud Act of 2006 doesn't require that the claims be false, or provably so. Only that they *might* be false, and the perpetrators of fraud know they *might* be false. Seems to me that's what Tom is focusing on.