header-logo header-logo

Consent & connivance: individual liability for company offences

22 March 2024 / Nick Barnard
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Features , Company , Commercial , Fraud
printer mail-detail
164866
Nick Barnard considers a little-used opportunity for investigative agencies, which could soon come into fashion
  • Considers the doctrine of ‘consent and connivance’, by which individuals can be criminally liable for offences committed by their companies.
  • Explores how this doctrine interacts with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 regime for corporate liability.

Much has been written on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023) and the new routes through which companies can be held criminally liable for the conduct of certain individuals. This article looks through the opposite end of the telescope and considers the doctrine of ‘consent and connivance’—an established, although rarely utilised, means by which certain individuals can be held criminally liable for offences committed by their companies. It also considers how this doctrine interacts with the new regime for corporate liability under ECCTA 2023.

Parasitic provisions

The majority of substantive offences usually in scope during corporate crime investigations are complemented by parasitic provisions stating that, where an offence

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll