header-logo header-logo

25 May 2018 / David Corker
Issue: 7794 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Criminal , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Why UWOs & tax evasion are not what really matter

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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