When does aggressive selling cross into criminality? Rebecca Hughes explores the expanding scope of fraudulent trading
- R v Beckett confirms that fraudulent purpose can be established from a cumulative ‘patchwork’ of acts and omissions, without proof of specific misconduct or loss.
- The decision may encourage more prosecutions and deterrent sentences, with potential implications for civil liability and corporate fraud prevention procedures.
The Court of Appeal in R v Beckett [2026] EWCA Crim 462 is the latest authority to examine the scope of fraudulent trading under s 993 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The decision follows neatly from R v Hunter and another [2021] EWCA Crim 1785 and earlier authorities, but cements a broader trend in the prosecution and sentencing of fraudulent trading, with potentially wider implications for both civil and corporate criminal liability.
In dismissing Mr Beckett’s appeal, the court revisited the meaning of ‘fraudulent purpose’ and took an expansive view of the circumstances that may engage s 993. It confirmed that prosecutors
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
