Are you certain of that? When your friend approaches you and says, "Hey...I need some advice..." you basically have three choices:
1. You can tell him to get bent and go pound salt.
2. You can deliberately steer him wrong and intentionally give him what you feel is bad advice.
3. You can hear him out and based on your knowledge and experience, give him the best advice you can.
You refer to "free will" and certainly you can do any of the above, but I would submit that a person with a conscience and a moral compass would have their free will over ridden by a "moral obligation" to take course of action #3. If one ignored their moral compass and opted for #1 or #2 just to see what happened 'cause it might be fun, I think it's reasonable to say that the failure to meet that obligation led to moral culpability if the advice seeker would have otherwise followed the good advice had it been given.
"People need to know that they have free will. Making the right decision and the intelligent decision in any given situation is the responsibility of a free person..."
And right and intelligent decisions are best made with full, accurate, complete information. When others gain the trust of a person and misrepresent themselves and circumstances, they have impaired that person's ability to make the best decision possible. Following your assertion to its logical conclusion, every person who has ever perpetrated fraud should be held blameless since their victims made poor decisions, and were responsible for making good decisions. There are some suckers out there who still fall for the Nigerian Prince scams (or the Kenyan President scams), and fail to do any due diligence. However, there are people make reasonable efforts to verify the information they are making their decisions on, and still get taken for everything.
No, fraud is a specific crime with clear definitions.
Giving advice is not. Givng bad advice is not. A prank phone call is not.
You are offering examples of crimes and relating them to situations that are not crimes.
In the example of giving advice to a person, the resulting decision made is still the ultimate repsonsibility of the peron making it, and that person will bear the consequences or fruits if any, and not the advice giver.
In the example of the Nigerian scam, the scammer certainlly committed fraud and may or may not be arrested and charged for such, but the person who gave away their money in the hopes of gaining more money is responsibile for giving away their money, and they will bear the consequence of that decision.
Because another person successfully exploited the known human flaw of greed, that particular crime could not have proceeded further without another participant who decided that it would proceed further, and that participant is responsible for that decision at the point in time that it was made.