Criminal act meaning

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016) revamped the legal regime regulating covert surveillance by public authorities. IPA 2016 superseded large parts of the framework previously, though not solely, contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000). See Practice Note: The regulation of intelligence gathering—an introductory guide. This note outlines the offences introduced by IPA 2016. For details of general sentencing limits in a magistrates’ court, see Practice Note: Sentences imposed following conviction—General limits on magistrates’ courts powers to impose custodial sentences following conviction... Section Offence Statutory defence Maximum sentence IPA 2016, s 3 — Unlawful interception: a person, by conduct in the UK, deliberately intercepts a communication during its transmission without lawful authority. Defence: where the individual has the right to control the operation or use of the system, or had that person’s express or implied consent to carry out the interception. Maximum sentence: on summary conviction, a fine; on indictment, up to two years’ imprisonment and/or a...

This Checklist outlines the matters defence practitioners may wish to weigh up when guiding a corporate client about attending an interview under caution arising from suspected corporate criminal conduct in England and Wales. It should be considered alongside the Practice Notes: Interview under caution and Voluntary attendance at an interview under caution. Advising clients before an interview under caution When a corporate client is asked to attend an interview under caution: Make sure the client grasps what an interview under caution involves and the significance of the caution. Confirm the client appreciates their rights before and during any interview under caution under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and PACE Code C. Explain what to expect at the interview under caution and the procedural steps the interviewing officer must take to meet PACE Code C. If the client forms part of a corporate group, verify the request for interview has been addressed to the correct legal entity...

Procedural Guide This Procedural Guide explains the process for seeking an enforcement order under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) to secure compliance with a child arrangements order (CAO). Such an order may require the respondent to complete unpaid work. It sets out details of the following: Who can apply Pre-action requirements Criminal standard of proof Orders the court may make Restrictions on making an enforcement order The procedure applies where a CAO has a warning notice properly attached and it is alleged the order has been breached, making enforcement necessary. Enforcing contact provisions can be difficult where the parent with whom the child lives is opposed to contact. Under ChA 1989 the court has extended powers to enforce all provisions of CAOs, not just those about contact but also those concerning a child’s living arrangements...

In Scotland, minor offences are pursued via a summary complaint. The summary process is governed by Part IX of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995...

STOP PRESS: This document is currently being updated to take account of the full implementation of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025), which amends both the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. For further guidance on the compliance consequences of DUAA 2025, see Practice Note: Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—compliance implications. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) grants data subjects several rights, including, among others: access to their personal data rectification erasure restriction of processing data portability a right of data subjects Individuals may ask an organisation at any time of their choosing to exercise one or more of these rights, and strict time limits and deadlines apply to responding to such requests promptly. See Practice Note: How to handle data subject requests. This Flowchart sets out a process for dealing with data subject requests made under the UK GDPR and reflects the requirements in the UK GDPR together...

See Practice Note: The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in Scotland for information on criminal procedure in Scotland. This flowchart sets out the steps taken when a petition to the nobile officium of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland is presented in relation to Scottish criminal proceedings. It should also be considered alongside Practice Note: Scottish criminal appeals—summary procedure...

A UK accountancy practice’s imminent prosecution for failing to stop tax evasion has thrown a spotlight on the country’s weak track record on enforcement, across this area of compliance, though the proceedings may galvanise a renewed push. Bennett Verby, which operates in northern England, is due to stand trial in September 2027, marking the first corporate case for failing to prevent tax evasion since the offence reached the statute book eight years ago. HMRC, the UK tax authority, has recently charged Bennett Verby with failing to prevent the facilitation of UK tax evasion under section 45 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017. Company representatives appeared before a Manchester court earlier this month. No plea has been entered yet, but the firm will reportedly contest the claims. The failure to prevent tax evasion offence was enacted with fanfare eight years ago, in the wake of the 2016 Panama Papers offshore finance scandal and the preceding Swiss Leaks revelations a year earlier, which alleged that companies had assisted wealthy individuals to avoid...

In this issue A review of key cases in 2025 Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Criminal procedure and evidence Proceeds of crime Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Local authority prosecutions Money laundering Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information A review of key cases in 2025 Headline corporate crime matters in 2025 included the UK Supreme Court overturning the convictions of two traders jailed for rate manipulation; the anti-fraud agency deploying a seldom‑used legal power to recover criminal cash; and the first conviction for sanctions breaches. See News Analysis: The biggest financial crime cases of 2025. Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution SFO compliance guide highlights early remediation is key On 26 November 2025, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)...

In this issue: Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Criminal procedure and evidence Proceeds of crime Appeals and judicial review Sentencing Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Cybercrime and data protection offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Other corporate crime updates LexTalk®Corporate Crime: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Deferred Prosecution Agreements—an ‘expiry date’ or a ‘best before’? (Guralp Systems Ltd v Serious Fraud Office) The statutory framework for Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) requires an expiry date within every DPA, mandates that any breach application is made while the DPA remains in force, and provides that where a DPA lasts until its expiry, the proceedings are to be discontinued. In this case, the DPA’s terms specified effectiveness for...

Proving the identity of the driver Where the bench is satisfied the defendant was served with a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the court receives a statement from the defendant admitting they were the driver, that statement is accepted as proof of identity. If no such admission exists—either because a RTA 1988, s 172 notice was not properly served in line with the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Pt 4, or the allegation is not one to which section 172 applies—the magistrates will look to other material. Information provided by the registered keeper to police during interview or questioning Entries held on the police national database See: Creed v Scott [1976] RTR 485 (not reported by LexisNexis®) and DPP v Bayliff [2003] EWHC 539 (Admin) (not reported by LexisNexis®). Details supplied to the police may suffice to prove who was driving; it is immaterial whether a driving licence is produced to confirm name...

The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) The Regulator is an arm’s-length public body set up under the Pensions Act 2004 (PeA 2004). Its authority to impose contribution notices and financial support directions appears in PeA 2004, ss 38–50. Although the Act does not use the label, these provisions are widely known as the Regulator’s ‘moral hazard’ powers. Their purpose is to counter the ‘moral hazard’ arising from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF): the possibility that corporate groups might organise their structures so as to heighten exposure within their pension schemes, comfortable that the PPF would intervene if the employer entered insolvency. The principal moral hazard tools—and the only ones exercised so far—are the power to issue a contribution notice (CN) and the power to issue a financial support direction (FSD). A CN compels the recipient to pay a specified amount into a defined benefit occupational pension scheme. A CN can be issued where the criteria in PeA 2004, s 38 are satisfied. These mechanisms exist to deter behaviour that would...

This Practice Note examines the statutory bars to extradition from the UK contained in section 11 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003). There are numerous specific grounds that an individual may rely upon to resist extradition under EA 2003. Some of these grounds apply across both categories of request, while others are confined to EA 2003, Pt 1 or EA 2003, Pt 2 requests only. For an overview of the statutory scheme under EA 2003, see Practice Note: Extradition and the statutory framework—an introduction to extradition. For further guidance on the procedure applicable to EA 2003, Pt 1 and EA 2003, Pt 2, see Practice Note: Extradition under Parts 1 and 2 of the Extradition Act 2003—procedure. Statutory bars At the extradition hearing, the district judge will assess whether the request relates to an extradition offence and whether any of the statutory bars to extradition apply. The statutory grounds for opposing extradition are then considered in turn...

[ Insert organisation name ] is proud of how we conduct our business. Our Code of ethics sets out the standards and policies that govern our operations and applies to everyone. Please read the Code carefully, make sure you understand it, and use it to guide your work. If you have any queries about the Code or its application, please speak with [ insert contact details ]. 1 What is fraud? 1.1 In broad terms, fraud is a criminal act involving deception or theft to secure an advantage. 1.2 The failure to prevent fraud offence under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023) covers a wide range of fraud offences carried out for the benefit of our organisation, including: fraud by false representation fraud by failing to disclose information fraud by abuse of position obtaining services dishonestly participation in a fraudulent business false statements by company directors false accounting fraudulent trading cheating the...

Question Identify the principal legislation set out here that introduced the corporate offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion: (b) Criminal Finances Act 2017 Which of the following is not among the three core essential elements for the failure to prevent tax evasion facilitation offence?...

Introduction The Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA 2017), effective in the UK since 2017, establishes a corporate offence for failing to stop the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. Tax evasion means unlawfully not paying, or paying less than, the taxes due. It commonly occurs through non-declaration or false declaration of liabilities to the appropriate tax authority. Tax evasion is a criminal offence. Responsibility may arise for an individual, for example in respect of income tax or VAT, or for a corporate body, for instance regarding corporation tax. Enclosed, for your review and approval, is a [ n updated ] [ Group ] policy on preventing the facilitation of tax evasion. This policy, which covers all of our businesses, opens with a brief message from [ insert name of relevant individual ] underlining its significance and calling for the personal commitment of every member of staff to put it into practice. It has received formal approval from [ insert name of relevant individual and/or team ]...

Civil and criminal consequences Any sum paid in excess remains the legal property of the payer. Where a supplier knows of an overpayment and deliberately fails to alert the customer, both criminal and civil repercussions may follow. Keeping the funds may constitute theft within sections 1–6 of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968), being the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. See Practice Note: Theft. Under TA 1968, s 3, ‘appropriation’ includes coming by property (and under TA 1968, s 4 this includes money), whether innocently or not, without initially stealing it and later keeping it. Dishonesty must be proved in line with the test in R v Ghosh: is the supplier dishonest by the standards of ordinary and decent people (objective)? does the supplier realise they are being dishonest by those standards (subjective)? Concealment of an overpayment would, in all likelihood, amount to dishonesty. The funds could be recovered in a...

Enforcement of possession orders As explained in Practice Note: Protection from eviction and protection from harassment, where a residential tenant remains in occupation after the tenancy has ended, a landlord can regain possession only through court proceedings, as the occupier benefits from the protection in section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (PEA 1977). PEA 1977 makes it a criminal offence for a landlord to retake possession of a private residential property without a court order (subject to certain exclusions—see below). In addition, if the tenant has not left by the date specified in the order, the landlord must instruct a bailiff to execute the court order. Commentary in Appeals from an order in a possession claim: Claims to the Possession of Land [G1.48] cautions that, even where an absolute possession order has been granted and the time for possession has expired, a landlord should still avoid taking back possession by physical means...

Information on right to work checks generally can be found in the following Practice Notes: Right to work checks: when and why Right to work checks: how to conduct the check Illegal workers—civil and criminal sanctions Section 15(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006) makes it unlawful to employ an adult who is subject to immigration control where they have either: not been granted permission to enter or remain in the UK, or permission that is invalid, has expired or otherwise ceased to have effect (for example, cancelled or curtailed), or is subject to a condition barring them from taking employment For more information, see the section of Practice Note: Right to work checks: when and why entitled ‘Why’...