header-logo header-logo

22 March 2024 / Nick Barnard
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Features , Company , Commercial , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Consent & connivance: individual liability for company offences

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll