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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll