header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025 / Jonathan Fisher KC
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Opinion , Liability , Bribery , Legal services , Company , Risk management , Governance , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Failure to prevent: Who’s liable?

235049
The ‘failing to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility should be viewed as an opportunity & not a burden, says Jonathan Fisher KC

The last 15 years have witnessed a fundamental shift in the law’s approach towards the imposition of criminal responsibility where companies and their directors have become involved in the commission of financial crime.

Historically, the law favoured a reactive approach, penalising a company where a director, as directing mind and will of the company, engaged in criminal activity. Today, a more proactive approach is preferred, whereby a company is held criminally liable unless it can show that adequate procedures to prevent the offending conduct had been instituted.

There are three such offences involving bribery (s 7, Bribery Act 2010), facilitating tax evasion offences (ss 45 and 46, Criminal Finances Act 2017), and failing to prevent fraud (s 199, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023). Although the fact that criminal activity occurred does not necessarily mean that preventative measures taken were

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

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