header-logo header-logo

18 March 2010
Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Unified agency should tackle corporate crime

Wrong model selected for successful prosecution of financial markets crimes

A think tank report has called for an overhaul of “lamentably deficient” systems for tackling corporate crime and fraud in the UK.

The report, Fighting fraud and financial crime, authored by fraud and corporate crime specialist Jonathan Fisher QC for Policy Exchange, claims the “haphazard development” of government agencies to tackle these crimes has resulted in a system where responsibilities overlap, power is dispersed and resources are unnecessarily duplicated. According to the National Fraud Office, fraud currently costs the UK £30bn per year and is increasing (tax fraud alone is estimated at £15.2bn a year).

The report recommends: a single “Financial Crimes Enforcement Agency” to tackle serious fraud, corruption and financial market crimes, either by consolidating the existing powers of agencies such as the Financial Services Agency and Office of Fair Trading, or by enlarging the Serious Fraud Office; new powers to support criminal enforcement with US-style deferred prosecution agreements and financial penalties; criminal law reforms to ensure companies can be held vicariously liable for the acts of their employees where serious fraud, corruption and financial market crimes are involved, and to relieve prosecutors of unduly burdensome practical requirements; and new Crown Court powers to make serious crime prevention orders, adjust property rights and confiscate assets, to widen the range of options available to the courts and prevent evasion ploys such as “designer divorces” where a spouse seeks transfer of property rights before the commencement of criminal proceedings.

Jonathan Fisher QC says: “The plethora of agencies involved in tackling fraud in the City has created overlapping layers of responsibility for investigation and prosecution and a wasteful duplication of manpower and specialist resources. 

“The government has simply picked the wrong model for the successful investigation and prosecution of financial markets crimes. The Roskill Report of 1986 recommended a unified agency, made up of individuals with the numerous professional skills needed in investigating and prosecuting complex cases. This is exactly the structure we should be moving to now,” he adds.
 

Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll