header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: Could this doctrine be useful in the fight against corporate crime?

22 March 2024
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Company , Commercial , Fraud
printer mail-detail
164866

A little-known doctrine could be a boon for investigative agencies, Nick Barnard, partner, Corker Binning, writes in this week’s NLJ

Moreover, the doctrine may be about to come into fashion due to the changing landscape ushered in by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

Under the doctrine of ‘consent and connivance’, individuals can be criminally liable for offences committed by their companies. There is no need for the company to be convicted for a director to be liable.

Barnard also looks at ‘the unusual status of consent and connivance in the criminal law, in that they create secondary liability on the basis of a lower threshold of mens rea than that required to be satisfied by the primary offender’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll