Legal News

The ECCTA 2023 obtained Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, and is being rolled out gradually in stages across the UK. The legislation aims to bolster corporate openness and visibility, enhance the UK's capacity to combat economic crime meaningfully and widen enforcement powers—especially regarding crypto-assets, fraud prevention and relevant company rules. Before ultimately taking office in 2024, the Labour Party condemned the failure to secure criminal convictions against financial services firms for wrongdoing linked to the 2008 financial crisis. Did they have a fair argument? Were the corporate criminal liability provisions then in force adequate? Should the Labour government reopen this field to craft effective measures to address corporate wrongdoing? Regrettably, recent Conservative reforms appear to have set the UK on a course likely to underperform and potentially be hard for Labour to unwind swiftly. The chances of achieving successful...

Naming and shaming: how not to regulate Most recently, the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee ( FSRC) produced a reproving report on the proposals, titled ‘ Naming and shaming: how not to regulate’. It raised concerns not just about the measures themselves, but also about the FCA’s approach. The FCA’s key idea was to alter the threshold for publicising the start of an enforcement investigation — and naming the firm involved — from doing so only in exceptional circumstances (the current position) to applying a public interest test. On 12 March 2025, in what seemed an unprecedented step, the FCA announced it would not proceed with these plans. Across the industry, senior management in financial services appeared collectively relieved. In a letter to the UK Parliament’s Treasury Select Committee, the FCA nonetheless indicated it would continue with a narrow set of...

The decision to self-report potential FCPA violations to the government has always been tricky Choosing whether to voluntarily disclose possible FCPA breaches to the authorities has never been straightforward. Doing so invites official investigations and potential sanctions, yet offers incentives such as the chance to earn co-operation credit from the government and, in some cases, avoid prosecution. Opting not to disclose heightens the likelihood of later detection and tougher penalties. However, experts told Law360 that the continuing shake-up in FCPA enforcement, sparked by President Donald Trump’s executive order of 10 February, has injected a fresh degree of uncertainty and hand-wringing into that calculus. James Koukios, co-head of the FCPA and global anti-corruption practice at Morrison Foerster LLP, observed that it has always been a wager whether to self-report, but at least there used to be a playbook and clear rules of...

In this issue: Criminal liability Cross border criminal investigations Criminal procedure and evidence Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Environmental offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Local authority prosecutions Corporate Crime in Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Criminal liability Crime and Policing Bill 2025 The Crime and Policing Bill was laid before Parliament on 25 February 2025. Although corporate crime is not its central theme, the Bill proposes to deliver the most sweeping overhaul of criminal corporate liability in five decades, overhaul the confiscation framework, and unveil a series of further measures with substantial consequences for corporates. Jon Malik, a senior associate at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, explores the headline...

At first glance, the judgment looked puzzling, resting on the court’s conclusion that US prosecutors’ insider-dealing counts failed the test of dual criminality—the core extradition rule that surrender is permitted only where the alleged conduct is criminal in the arresting state—even though the UK has long firmly outlawed insider dealing in clear terms for many years indeed. The shake-up to entrenched doctrine left extradition specialists on either side of the Atlantic astonished and genuinely perplexed. Queries proliferate: Are Britons now truly beyond the reach of American enforcers? Must, at last, the US Department of Justice perhaps scale back significantly its appetite for City of London traders? Does El‑ Khouri foreshadow a still wider re-evaluation of UK extradition legal rules? And, given the Trump administration’s dizzying shifts in the United States’ usual international stance, might other states perhaps do the same, curtailing America’s spell as the...

What is the consultation about and what has prompted it? A private prosecution is brought by a private person or organisation, rather than by a statutory prosecuting authority. The entitlement to institute such proceedings is retained by section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Various bodies routinely bring cases before the courts of England and Wales on a private footing, exercising the continuing right available to any individual to commence a private prosecution. In recent times, those acting as private prosecutors have faced heightened examination. This is evident in the Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report and its recommendations on safeguards around private prosecutions, as well as in the criticisms advanced, and the evidence provided to, the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. More recently, the quashing of convictions for railway fare evasion offences in 2024 has further fuelled the discussion about private...

What new offences, powers or reforms in relation to corporate crime are being proposed? This Bill is remarkably broad, spanning multiple governmental policy aims and priorities......

The ECJ held that the General Court, when reviewing the European Council’s move to sanction Igor Shuvalov, was justified in concluding there was adequate evidence that he had supported Russia since 2014 ‘on a continuous basis’. As recorded by the ECJ, the General Court considered that, by virtue of his role as president of VEB RF, Shuvalov implemented the Russian government’s economic policy and thereby contributed to Crimea’s economic development, so it could be concluded that he provided active support, the ECJ found. Shuvalov, previously deputy prime minister in Dmitry Medvedev’s cabinet and, before that, in the cabinet of now- President Vladimir Putin, had sought to set aside a February 2024 General Court judgment that upheld the Council’s sanctions on the former statesman......

These appeals mark the Supreme Court’s initial look at challenges to sanctions within the UK’s post‑ Brexit framework, and the first since its landmark ruling in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 39 in 2014, which set out the test for assessing a measure’s proportionality. They stem from the UK’s Russia sanctions regime and follow several lower court judgments dismissing challenges to sanctions designations. At the heart of these cases is whether the measures accord with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR), and whether they are proportionate in light of Bank Mellat. Guidance from the Supreme Court on these key questions will have a significant bearing on future sanctions disputes. This article considers the issues raised that are likely to be examined by the UK Supreme Court in due course concerning...

In this issue: Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Consumer protection and cartels Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Food safety and hygiene offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft 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 New Q& As Useful information Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution SFO ruling clarifies contractual treatment of DPAs On 31 January 2025, in R v Guralp Systems Ltd, the Court of Appeal determined that the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO) may ask the court to bring a deferred prosecution agreement ( DPA) to an end even after the date specified for its expiry. The...

What is the failure to prevent fraud offence? The FTPF offence arises where a large organisation gains from fraud carried out by its associated persons. The entity may incur liability if an associated person commits a specified fraud offence intending to benefit the organisation, whether that benefit is obtained directly or indirectly. A 'large organisation' is defined by reference to three size tests; it qualifies if at least two are met: (1) more than 250 employees (2) more than £36m turnover (3) more than £18m in total assets An 'associated person' broadly includes anyone who provides services for or on behalf of the relevant organisation, such as officers, directors, employees and agents, together with subsidiaries and employees of subsidiaries. Under the new offence, an organisation can be liable—and face an unlimited fine—for a wide range of fraud offences, including fraudulent...

The owner of gambling giants Ladbrokes and Coral The parent of two of the UK’s biggest names in the field reported stronger full-year figures on 6 March 2025 as losses narrowed. Twelve months earlier it had posted heavy losses, largely the consequence of the £615m deferred prosecution agreement ( DPA) reached with the UK’s tax authority in December 2023. Entain, formerly called GVC, avoided prosecution by paying to settle allegations that it failed to put adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery at Turkish company Sportingbet, which it owned from 2011 to 2017. In the days following the settlement, Jette Nygaard- Andersen resigned as Entain’s chief executive. The group weathered the initial turmoil, yet moving on may prove difficult, with issues linked to the episode still looming large. In August 2024, UK law firm Fox Williams filed a £150m claim against the company on behalf of...

The General Court of the European Union dismissed Ponomarekno’s challenge, rejecting his claim that the Council had relied on false information in finding connections to Putin, as well as his contention that the adverse impact of the sanctions on him lacked justification. The judges ultimately ruled that, on the available material before it, the Council was entitled—without assessment error—to treat the applicant as giving support to a Russian decision-maker. They also concluded that the sanctions’ consequences overall were justified by their aims, to exert pressure on Putin to end the war in Ukraine......

Here we set out the background to the Guralp DPA, consider the issues that arose regarding the disgorgement of profits and the DPA’s duration, and explain how the court addressed these matters... Background Guralp agreed a DPA with the SFO in October 2019, becoming the sixth company in the UK to do so. This followed an investigation into claims that the business had bribed a foreign public official to secure sales of its technology. Over a 13‑year span, three former staff members were said to have made corrupt payments to an official at the Korean Institute of Geoscience and Mineral resources to guarantee purchases of Guralp’s seismic monitoring equipment. Although the individual defendants were acquitted at trial, the company admitted conspiring to make corrupt payments and, for conduct after 2011—when the Bribery Act 2010 ( BA 2010) took...

In this issue: Criminal Liability Criminal procedure and evidence Appeal and judicial review Sentencing Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Food safety and hygiene offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Local authority prosecutions Money laundering Lex Talk®Corporate Crime: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Criminal Liability Three fraud reforms you might have missed in the Crime and Policing Bill. Tucked within legislation aimed at clamping down on phone thieves and anti-social behaviour in the government’s latest Crime and Policing Bill are a series of measures designed to give prosecutors greater leverage as they tackle economic crime. See News Analysis: Three fraud reforms you might have missed in the Crime and Policing Bill. Criminal procedure and evidence Consultation on private prosecution and single justice procedure reforms launched. The Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) has opened a consultation that proposes...

R (on the applications of Sean Glaister and Mary Carr) v His Majesty’s Assistant Coroner for North Wales ( East and Central) [2025] EWHC 167 ( Admin) [ Case name and citation] What are the practical implications of this case? This decision will stand as a key point of reference offering guidance on the way a jury should set out its conclusion in box 4 of the Record of Inquest when it determines that an unlawful killing has occurred. The judgment further contains a thorough analysis of the legal constituents of gross negligence manslaughter, and will assist practitioners who advise clients or appear before the court in matters concerning this category of killing. Its utility is not confined to occasions when a coroner leaves unlawful killing to be considered by a jury; it also benefits practitioners evaluating such cases and judges delivering...

The government is gearing up to set up a dedicated anti-fraud squad with powers to raid individuals’ properties and to reclaim money held in their bank accounts, signalling the latest push in the fight against coronavirus ( COVID-19)-related crime. Proposals heading to parliament as part of the fraud bill would authorise the Cabinet Office’s Public Sector Fraud Authority ( PSFA) to impose civil penalties as an alternative to criminal prosecution, widening the tools available to pursue wrongdoing. In addition, the time limit for bringing civil claims against fraudsters would be increased from six to 12 years, doubling the window for action. Arriving less than two months after Tom Hayhoe was named coronavirus corruption commissioner, the package is designed to bolster his ability to investigate suspected pandemic fraud cases. The plans align with the Labour government’s oft-stated commitment to hold to account those...

In this issue: Investigating criminal conduct Criminal procedure and evidence Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Consumer protection and cartels Environmental offences Financial services and pensions offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Insolvency offences and Companies Act offences Money laundering International Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Investigating criminal conduct Crime and Policing Bill introduced into Parliament The Home Office has confirmed that the Crime and Policing Bill is due to be laid before Parliament. Headline measures include a power for police to enter without a warrant to retrieve electronically tracked stolen goods, scrapping the £200 de facto threshold for prosecuting shop theft, and a bespoke assault offence to better protect retail staff. The Bill also...

Long-trailed changes appended to the Crime and Policing Bill 2025, laid before Parliament by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper on 25 February 2025, aim to broaden corporate criminal liability and fortify investigations to recoup the assets of fraudsters. The draft law would likewise curb the financial risks borne by enforcers in litigation. Here, Law360 flags three aspects of the government’s new Bill you may have overlooked. Corporate criminal liability widens The centrepiece for white-collar specialists is a plan to extend the spectrum of offences for which a corporate body can face criminal liability when they are committed by senior managers. After years of prosecutorial frustration, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ( ECCTA 2023) overhauled the legal test, allowing authorities such as the Serious Fraud Office ( SFO) to hold companies liable for economic offences carried out by their senior managers. These fresh...

The government plans to issue the next assessment of the UK’s money laundering and terrorist financing threats before year-end. It may offer a revealing snapshot of the present landscape. Under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds ( Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, HM Treasury and the Home Office must produce periodic joint reports on the money laundering and terrorist financing dangers within the UK. No fixed timetable governs compilation or release, yet both departments are obliged to keep their assessment of risk current. The most recent edition appeared in 2020. At that time, increasing reliance on cash-intensive enterprises to conceal the proceeds of crime was highlighted as a concern, together with the emerging issue of cryptocurrencies being used for money laundering. There is no set calendar for their production and publication; however, both institutions must ensure their...