header-logo header-logo

13 April 2023
Issue: 8021 / Categories: Legal News , Fraud , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Failure to prevent fraud confirmed

An offence of failure to prevent fraud will be included in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, the government has said.

An organisation will be liable where a specified fraud or false accounting offence is committed by an employee or agent, for the organisation’s benefit, and the organisation did not have reasonable fraud prevention procedures in place. There will be no need to demonstrate company bosses ordered or knew about the fraud.

If found guilty, the organisation may be liable for unlimited fines. However, individuals within the organisation will not be prosecuted.

The offence will apply to large partnerships and bodies corporate including charities with two of the following criteria: more than 250 employees, more than £36m turnover; and more than £18m in total assets. Its scope can be amended at a later date through secondary legislation. Government guidance on what constitutes ‘reasonable procedures’ will be published at a later date.

Aziz Rahman, senior partner at Rahman Ravelli, said the offence, if enacted, ‘looks set to be a game changer.

‘It gives the SFO a new line of attack—and corporates have to ensure they do all they can to ensure they have an adequate defence. For the SFO, the arrival of such an offence could have a similar impact as when the Bribery Act passed into law.

‘Corporates need to view this as a compliance alarm call. If and when this offence becomes a reality, they will need to thoroughly assess their internal compliance and fraud prevention procedures to ensure they are fit for purpose. A failure to do so may mean they cannot rely on the reasonable measures defence that will be available to the offence—which could prove costly.’

Louise Hodges, partner at Kingsley Napley, said: ‘Although the proposed failure to prevent offence is narrower in scope than the wide-ranging economic crime offence that many had campaigned for, it is still a significant step which broadens criminal liability and increases the risk of unlimited fines against large corporates that benefit from fraud committed by employees. 

‘Companies that have in place appropriate compliance and fraud deterrence measures will have a defence—ultimately the goal is to drive a cultural shift for companies to clean up their act and root out misconduct in their own organisations and punish those that turn a blind eye.

‘SMEs are currently carved out of the proposals, although this is likely to be subject to challenge as the legislation passes through Parliament with many seeing smaller businesses as particularly vulnerable to becoming vehicles of fraud.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll