Sophie Tang
Sophie Tang is an associate in the criminal litigation team at Kingsley Napley. She joined Kingsley Napley in 2024, after working as a Senior Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service and an Associate at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
Sophie acts on a wide range of white collar and general crime cases. She acts for suspects and witnesses in respect of investigations into fraud, bribery and corruption and cartels. She advises both corporates and individuals in internal investigations, regulatory investigations (brought by the SFO, CMA and CPS) and litigation. Sophie has a particular interest in the international dimension of criminal cases and has advised on multijurisdictional investigations and litigation.
Sophie advises on all areas of general crime. She has particular expertise in defending suspects and defendants accused of rape and serious sexual offences, having prosecuted in the CPS’s specialist RASSO unit. Sophie used to frequently appear as prosecuting advocate in Magistrates’ Court trials and is therefore well placed to advise on matters of criminal procedure, evidence and advocacy.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2019
Experience
- Crown Prosecution Service (2022 - 2024)
- Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (2019 - 2022)
Qualification
- BA Law (2015)
Education
- University of Cambridge (2012-2015)
3 Contributions by Sophie Tang
PRACTICE NOTES
Criminal legal professional privilege in England and Wales: legal advice and litigation privilege, dominant purpose and reasonable contemplation, internal investigations, interviews, and multi-recipient emails
This Practice Note aims to provide some guidance on the core principles of legal professional privilege (LPP) and how they apply in criminal investigations and prosecutions. For further information and guidance on maintaining LPP for a client during the course of a criminal investigation, see Practice Note: Maintaining privilege during criminal investigations.
What is privilege?
Privilege can be grouped into four primary categories in law:
legal professional privilege
common/joint interest privilege (though, strictly, this sits within legal professional privilege)
without prejudice privilege
privilege against self-incrimination
This Practice Note deals solely with LPP within a criminal context. For more general information concerning legal professional privilege, see Practice Note: Legal professional privilege in civil proceedings. For information on other types of privilege, refer to Practice Notes: Privilege—joint and common interest privilege, Privilege—solicitor and client confidence, Privilege against self-incrimination and Without prejudice communications.
Legal professional privilege (LPP)
LPP is recognised by the courts as a fundamental right...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Managing legal professional privilege in cross-border criminal investigations: comparative rules, waiver traps, EU competition nuances, US contrasts, Overseas Production Orders and practical steps
The rules relating to privilege, disclosure and waiver can vary widely from one jurisdiction to another.
In recent years, collaboration among enforcement bodies has intensified significantly. This is reflected in instances of deferred prosecution agreements (DPA) spanning several jurisdictions and joint working between the UK and nations including France and the USA. See Practice Note: DPAs in practice. Where matters are multi-jurisdictional, it is essential to take privilege advice from lawyers in every relevant jurisdiction from the outset to ensure important material retains privilege and to minimise risk to the client. For instance, releasing privileged documents under a limited waiver in one country might be treated as a full waiver in another, with consequent loss of protection. This Practice Note outlines key privilege issues that emerge in cross-border investigations and sets out practical measures to safeguard privilege in practice. For guidance on legal privilege and preserving it in criminal investigations, see Practice Notes: Legal Professional Privilege in criminal proceedings and Maintaining privilege during criminal investigations...
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
The iniquity (crime-fraud) exception to legal professional privilege: scope, proof standards, civil and criminal contexts, dominant purpose test, and investigative powers (England and Wales)
Legal professional privilege (LPP) safeguards the confidentiality of specified lawyer–client communications and is a fundamental right, subject only to tightly limited exceptions where it applies. A way to contest LPP is to argue that it never arose, often by invoking the crime–fraud, or iniquity, exception. This Practice Note explores that exception in greater depth. For guidance on what constitutes LPP and how it is preserved in criminal investigations, see the Practice Notes: Legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings and Maintaining privilege during criminal investigations.
The crime-fraud exception
When does it apply?
Privilege cannot be claimed over communications made to facilitate the client’s commission of a crime or fraud, or that themselves form part of a fraudulent act. This is also referred to as the ‘iniquity exception’, a more precise term since, as stated in JSC BTA Bank v Abylasov, it is not limited to criminal conduct but extends to other forms of iniquity. See further below: ‘Iniquity’ as an exception to privilege...
Corporate Crime
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
