header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025 / Jonathan Fisher KC
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Opinion , Liability , Bribery , Legal services , Company , Risk management , Governance , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Failure to prevent: Who’s liable?

235049
The ‘failing to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility should be viewed as an opportunity & not a burden, says Jonathan Fisher KC

The last 15 years have witnessed a fundamental shift in the law’s approach towards the imposition of criminal responsibility where companies and their directors have become involved in the commission of financial crime.

Historically, the law favoured a reactive approach, penalising a company where a director, as directing mind and will of the company, engaged in criminal activity. Today, a more proactive approach is preferred, whereby a company is held criminally liable unless it can show that adequate procedures to prevent the offending conduct had been instituted.

There are three such offences involving bribery (s 7, Bribery Act 2010), facilitating tax evasion offences (ss 45 and 46, Criminal Finances Act 2017), and failing to prevent fraud (s 199, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023). Although the fact that criminal activity occurred does not necessarily mean that preventative measures taken were inadequate, the burden of proof rests on the company to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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