Skip to content

1 December, 2023

Subscribe Advertise About Us
  • My Account
  • Register
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
    • Categories

      • View All
      • Board Moves
    • Proxy adviser warns LSE

      Proxy adviser warns LSE over governance

      Abolishing the public register of shareholder revolts ‘won’t stop capital providers exercising their democratic rights’,...

    • sustainability governance Sustainability governance is on the rise

      But despite greater corporate attention being paid to ESG, directors’ engagement with it is losing...

    • Sam Altman News round-up: this week in governance

      OpenAI fires and rehires Sam Altman; is it OK for the Big Four to remain...

  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • purpose statement

      On purpose: crafting an authentic statement

      Purpose statements define how organisations align purpose and people. Here’s how to make a statement...

    • first-time CFO

      How to succeed as a first-time CFO

      The remit and responsibilities of the chief financial officer have changed, which can seem daunting...

    • ethical culture

      How to embed an ethical culture

      Business success depends on purpose—and therefore ethics—being the top item on any organisation’s board agenda.

  • Comment
      • View all
    • uk corporate governance

      Why UK corporate governance needs tightening up

      The LSE’s response to the government’s panicky U-turn on governance regulation is not helpful to...

    • faith in the UK Audit reform is essential to restore faith in the UK

      When it comes to understanding what attracts investors to a capital market, the London Stock...

    • U-turn on audit reform An uncomfortable U-turn on audit reform

      The government’s bonfire of the regulations expected for audit reform creates a source of uncertainty...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • reporting elements Boards urged to retain ‘beneficial’ reporting elements

      Although the government cancelled the requirement, resilience disclosures ‘cannot be wasted effort’, says senior auditco...

    • energy transition Collaboration is key to UK energy transition

      Communication, innovation and engagement are needed for the move to net zero, an expert panel...

    • helle bank jorgensen Helle Bank Jørgensen on governance, ESG and how board directors can become stewards of the future

      In spite of ESG toxicity in the US, she remains optimistic that companies are working...

  • Careers
      • View all
      • Selection
      • Board Moves
    • gender diversity study Academics criticise BlackRock gender diversity research

      Its methodology came under fire, with some critics also pointing out it was wrong to...

    • diversity of thought How to boost diversity of thought

      Companies benefit from diverse workforces, but also from having the input of different opinions and...

    • minority NED Number of minority NEDs drops

      Although there is some progress in diversity in other board roles, research suggests that boards...

  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Corporate & Advisory Services
    • Risk Map: Top Risks 2024

      Control Risks' Top Risks for 2024 cut across the geopolitical, security, operational, regulatory, and cyber/digital...

    • A Director’s Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations 2023

      An internal investigation must be handled meticulously to avoid legal exposure, regulatory or criminal prosecution...

    • Spencer Stuart UK Board Index Highlights 2023 cover

      Spencer Stuart UK Board Index Highlights 2023

      The 2023 UK Spencer Stuart Board Index is a review of board composition and governance...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Selection
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

Crime in the making

by Simon Airey and Joshua Domb

In May David Cameron announced his intention to introduce a new corporate offence: failing to prevent an economic crime. Simon Airey and Joshua Domb discuss what it means for boards.

Photo: Alan Cleaver, Flickr

Photo: Alan Cleaver, Flickr
Photo: Alan Cleaver, Flickr

David Cameron recently announced plans to consult in relation to a proposed new corporate offence of “failure to prevent economic crime”.

“Economic crime” is likely to include offences such as fraud, theft, false accounting, forgery, destroying company documents, money laundering, handling the proceeds of crime and a range of offences under the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000.

If enacted, the new law would represent a significant expansion of corporate criminal liability in the UK.

At present, a company can only be found liable for fraud and other economic crimes if it can be proved that persons at executive or board level were complicit in the criminality.

Key points

The new offence is likely to resemble section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010 by making companies criminally liable for acts of an “associated person”, likely to be defined as anyone who provides services for or on behalf of the company, anywhere in the world.

  • It is expected that the legislation will have broad extra-territorial effect.
  • If the legislation mirrors the Bribery Act, the only defence will be for a company to show that, at the time of the crime, it had in place “adequate procedures” that were designed to prevent such conduct.
  • Companies will need to undertake a detailed risk assessment, design comprehensive policies and procedures and implement a tailored compliance programme. Such a programme will inevitably need to include demonstrable board-level engagement, bespoke training for key management staff and third parties, plus appropriate due diligence and monitoring. The compliance burden will be high and early preparation and planning will be essential.

Establishing such involvement is usually difficult, particularly in large corporations where the chain of knowledge may break long before it reaches senior management or where proof of complicity is hard to establish.

As a result, regulators have frequently struggled to attribute criminal liability to corporate entities.

The proposed offence will likely apply to all companies that conduct business, or part of a business, in the UK (e.g. via a subsidiary, sales operation, a representative office or even as a result of a listing on the London Stock Exchange).

In other words, the law will apply to foreign companies as well as those incorporated in the UK.

David Cameron. Photo: European Union
David Cameron. Photo: European Union

In one way, expanding the law in this way would be a convenient and logical step in the process of making companies more accountable for the criminal acts of those associated with them, and in advancing the compliance agenda generally.

It also chimes with a number of anti-corruption and transparency initiatives being promoted by David Cameron globally, which are undoubtedly intended as legacy achievements for his premiership.

However, an expansion of the law in this way is unlikely to be welcomed by many companies who will view it either as an unnecessary imposition or an unduly, onerous burden, or both—hence the consultation.

What might be seen as a laudable proposal to ensure high standards of business globally, level the playing field internationally and brand the UK as a “go to” destination for compliant companies, needs to be weighed against the downside: substantial costs, notably increased administration and a significant sap upon management at a time when many companies are still struggling with their obligations under the Bribery Act and a raft of regulation generally.

For large companies, liability for the acts of associated persons is likely to include considerable numbers of subsidiaries, employees and agents in numerous jurisdictions, some of whom may be difficult to oversee.

Companies found guilty of an offence are likely to be at risk of unlimited fines, disgorgement and a range of other legal and regulatory sanctions.

Non-executive action 

In light of the current global mood and various associated initiatives in relation to matters such as bribery and corruption, tax evasion, money laundering, transparency, etc, it would not be rash to assume that the proposed new offence will be enacted into law in one form or another.

However, there is no doubt that it will have a profound impact if enacted in the way envisaged.

It may be possible to influence the form and content of the law so that the impact is not disproportionately onerous; companies should therefore respond to the consultation directly or via industry bodies or their professional advisers.

Start planning and asking questions now. Conduct an impact assessment. Is your company equipped to deal with the likely compliance burden?

Seek to identify the risk of economic crime being committed by your “associated persons” by looking at how you do business, where and with whom.

On the assumption that the law will be enacted, your company will need to undertake a detailed risk assessment, design comprehensive policies and procedures and implement a tailored compliance programme which includes appropriate training, due diligence, monitoring and review.

A preliminary review of these issues now is unlikely to be wasted time.

Demonstrate and document board-level engagement. There will be serious legal and reputational consequences for companies (and their boards) where they fall short of the required standards.

Many companies are still struggling to achieve compliance with the Bribery Act. Undertake a gap analysis. If there is still work to be done, take action to review the proper implementation of associated policies and procedures, refresh training and demonstrate board-level engagement and appropriate due diligence.

Take note of the new corporate offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion by associated persons, likely to be introduced later this year.

Simon Airey is partner at DLA Piper, where Joshua Domb is an associate.
[email protected]

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • CEOs under fire: the psychology of leaders in a warzone
    March 11, 2022
    Bullet hole in glass in front of Ukrainian flag

    The business world expects bosses to perform under pressure, not under fire. How are corporate leaders in Ukraine dealing with the crisis?

  • Board effectiveness in the new world of work
    April 21, 2022
    Boardroom at sunrise

    Boards should use this post-pandemic period to reflect and reinvent themselves and their working practices.

  • Companies must put equality at the heart of the race to zero
    November 10, 2021
    Trees reflected in buildings

    Singular pursuit of net-zero by 2050 could exacerbate inequality and derail our chances of a climate-resilient future.

  • Ethics in the technology sector remains a headline issue
    January 26, 2022
    Businessman has biometric data scanned

    For a second year running technology is the sector that garnered the most news stories about ethical lapses—with data privacy a key concern.

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

economic crime

Search


Sign up to our Newsletter

Receive independent news, thoughtful journalism & expert insights about leadership, corporate governance & key boardroom issues straight to your inbox every week.

SIGN UP

Follow Us





Most Popular

  • Why UK corporate governance needs tightening up
  • How to succeed as a first-time CFO
  • How to embed an ethical culture
  • Director Reference Guide: board governance and leadership on data
  • On purpose: crafting an authentic statement

Featured Partner Profile

Diligent

Diligent

Diligent Corporation, which was founded in 2001, is headquartered in New York, NY with a European HQ in London. Diligent’s modern governance platform empowers leaders and teams at every level of the organisation to digitally transform and create ...

Featured Partner Resources

Leadership ESG

Leadership in ESG Integration: a study into UK board oversight, implementation and disclosure

This research report is based on detailed response...
The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

This is the inaugural white paper from The Engagem...
Mazars c-suite 2023

Mazars C-suite barometer 2023

The Mazars C-suite barometer is based on responses...

Stakeholder Engagement: A Roadmap for UK Plc Boards

This guide aims to provide directors and their col...

Digital Boards: How Technology Adoption is Driving Culture Change and Resiliency

Digital tools proved their worth to boards during ...
Leadership in AI report

Leadership in AI

This report from Board Agenda and Mazars, in assoc...

A Director's Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations 2023

An internal investigation must be handled meticulo...
 

ADVERTISE – FREE CORPORATE LISTING

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
ADD

ADVERTISE – PROMOTE YOUR REPORTS & WHITEPAPERS

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
Add Resource

Register Free

Register to receive free article views, selected resource downloads, and all the latest news alerts straight to your inbox. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Corporate & Advisory Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • Sitemap
|

Copyright © 2023 Questor Media Group Ltd.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap