header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 February 2025 / Michael Goodwin KC , Theo Burges
Issue: 8105 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Preventing fraud: better together?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll