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

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