Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed.
Prosecutors must analyse what the representation was and importantly when it was made, as simply as possible, for example: In the case of stolen documents the false representation may be that the defendant was lawfully in possession of the cheque/credit card/book and entitled to use it or that he was the person named on the cheque/credit card/book and entitled to use it.
If the defendant is using his own credit card knowing that he has exceeded his credit limit then the false representation will be that he had authority to use the card and that the card issuer would honour the transaction ( [1982] A. 449 HL) If the documents are forged then the false representation would be that the document was genuine and would be honoured.
Prosecutors should bear in mind that the principle of caveat emptor applies and should consider whether civil proceedings or the regulatory regime that applies to advertising and other commercial activities might be more appropriate.
Not every advertising puff should lead to a criminal conviction but it is also the case that fraudsters prey on the vulnerable.