header-logo header-logo

21 February 2025 / Michael Goodwin KC , Theo Burges
Issue: 8105 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Preventing fraud: better together?

208715
Michael Goodwin KC & Theo Burges explain how deferred prosecution agreements can be used in tandem with the new failure to prevent fraud offence
  • Key aspects of the new failure to prevent fraud (FTP) offence.
  • The core principles of the FTP government guidance.
  • Why the deferred prosecution agreements brand is likely to be expanded by and used in tandem with new FTP offence.

The long-awaited guidance on failure to prevent fraud (FPF) was published by the Home Office on 6 November 2024. The new law, which will come into effect on 1 September 2025, makes it an offence for an incorporated body to fail to prevent certain types of dishonesty and fraud-based conduct occurring while lacking adequate fraud prevention procedures being in place.

In and of itself, this represents another weapon in the arsenal of prosecuting authorities, particularly the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). But the spectre of the likely interaction between FPF and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) also looms for corporates. This article aims to

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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