header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 May 2018 / David Corker
Issue: 7794 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Criminal , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Why UWOs & tax evasion are not what really matter

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7794_corker

The authorities muster their forces to tackle ‘dirty money’. David Corker remains unimpressed

The Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA) is the most significant criminal fraud statute for many years. While the Criminal Justice Act 2003 affected criminal law changes in relation to hearsay, bad character and disclosure, there was no specific focus on fraud. Although the Fraud Act 2006 and the Bribery Act 2010 are noteworthy, their effects are limited. The former was enacted partly to abolish recourse to the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, an enduring Serious Fraud Office (SFO) favourite. The bribery statute, a key milestone in the expanded model of corporate criminal liability, is otherwise narrowly focused.

Unexplained wealth orders

Chapter 1 of Part 1 and Part 3 of the CFA are key provisions. The former concerns unexplained wealth orders (UWOs). Within a month of being implemented, the National Crime Agency proclaimed that it had obtained two of these. Part 3 concerns the new corporate criminal offence: facilitation of tax evasion. Only

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

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