By investing in people, we grow more than money. We build the kind of deeply invested relationships that put the power of people in a world of numbers. Bring your future potential into focus with lending solutions tailored to your industry and needs. Our experienced bankers will help you determine the best accounts to achieve your personal financial goals. Search Submit. Business Banking. Account Types. Collection Services. Disbursement Services. Fraud Prevention. International Banking. Online Banking. Asset Management. Asset-based Lending. Aviation Finance.
Corporate Asset Finance. Healthcare Finance. Lender Finance. Multifamily Lending. Premium Finance. This can include property situated anywhere and includes money section 9 a. A person in the regulated sector knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds to know or suspect, that another person is engaged in money laundering that is, one of the principal offences described above and fails to disclose that knowledge or suspicion to the authorities section A nominated officer fails to disclose money laundering to the authorities, where that information has come to him in consequence of a disclosure under POCA sections and A person in the regulated sector tips off a third party that a disclosure to the authorities has been made or that an investigation into the alleged money laundering is being contemplated or carried out.
It must be proved that the tipping off was likely to be prejudicial to the investigation section A. A person in the regulated or non-regulated sector makes a disclosure that is likely to prejudice an investigation into alleged money laundering or falsifies, conceals, destroys or disposes of documents which are relevant to a money laundering investigation section 2. The person must know or suspect that an investigation is being or is about to be conducted, and that the disclosure is likely to prejudice the investigation.
The above offences can be committed by individuals or corporates. Terrorist financing Terrorism Act TA Whereas POCA applies to dealings with the proceeds of criminal conduct, the TA applies to dealings with funds used to finance or otherwise support terrorism. Inviting, receiving, providing, using or possessing money or other property intending, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism sections 15 and Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism section Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control by or on behalf of another person of terrorist property by concealment, removal from jurisdiction, by transfer to nominees or in any other way section 18 sometimes referred to as the "terrorist money laundering offence".
The TA also contains similar, but not identical, "secondary" offences to those found in POCA in relation to failure to disclose section 19 and 21A , tipping off section 21D and prejudicing an investigation or interfering with material relating to an investigation into terrorism section However, some of the most common offences are set out below.
How we can help you to set up business in Indonesia
Financial sanctions It is generally a criminal offence to:. Make funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a target also known as a "listed person". Deal with funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled directly or indirectly by a target, or a person acting on behalf of a target. Participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is:. The offender has breached a prohibition, or failed to comply with an obligation, that is imposed by or under financial sanctions legislation. The offender knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that they were in breach of the prohibition or as the case may be had failed to comply with the obligation.
If a monetary penalty is payable by a corporate person on the above basis, OFSI can also impose a monetary penalty on an officer of that corporate if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the breach or failure in respect of which the monetary penalty is payable by the corporate body either:. Took place with the consent or connivance of the officer. Was attributable to any neglect on the part of the officer.
Trade sanctions It is generally an offence to:. Export military goods or transfer military software or technology to sanctioned countries without obtaining a licence to do so. Export UK controlled dual-use goods or transfer UK controlled dual-use software or technology to a prohibited destination, or where it is known that the end destination is a prohibited destination and that no processing or work will be done on the goods, software or technology before they reach their end destination , without obtaining a licence to do so. Export non-controlled dual-use goods or transfer non-controlled dual-use software or technology where it is suspected that they may be intended for WMD weapons of mass destruction purposes.
Traffic and broker military items between a third country and the sanctioned country without a licence to do so. Become knowingly concerned in an activity prohibited by the EU Regulations on trade sanctions with the intention of evading the relevant prohibition. Fail to comply with licence conditions. It is a defence to the non-compliance offence if the accused can show that they took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence Regulation 86 3. It is a defence to the offence of prejudicing an investigation if the accused did not know or suspect that the disclosure was likely to prejudice the investigation Regulation 87 3 a.
It is a defence to the disclosure offence if the accused can prove that they reasonably believed that the disclosure was lawful or that the information had already and lawfully been made available to the public Regulation 88 4. It is a defence if the accused:.
Makes an authorised disclosure to the authorities and obtained appropriate prior consent. Intended to make an authorised disclosure and had a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Knows, or believes on reasonable grounds, that the relevant conduct occurred outside the UK and the relevant conduct was not unlawful under the criminal law applying in that country or territory at the time it occurred, so long as it is not of a description prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
Is a deposit-taking body that is, a bank and the value of the criminal property is less than GBP Commits the act in carrying out a function relating to the enforcement of POCA or other enactment relating to criminal conduct. Only in relation to the section offence, acquired, used or had possession of the property for adequate consideration. Secondary offences The defences to secondary offences are as follows:. Failure to disclose sections to Tipping off section A.
There are a number of defences relating to disclosures between professional advisers or institutions operating in the EEA states or in countries with equivalent money laundering requirements. In addition, it is a defence if the accused:. Prejudicing an investigation section In summary, some of the defences available to the accused are that:. The person did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the arrangement related to terrorist property.
An authorised disclosure was made and appropriate prior consent had been obtained. The person had a reasonable excuse for not making an authorised disclosure. The person is a professional legal adviser and the information came to him in privileged circumstances. These activities are usually very specific and typically relate to activities or goods required for humanitarian purposes, or which relate to contractual or other obligations entered into prior to certain dates or for specific purposes.
Otherwise, it is generally a defence to show that the accused did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that they were in breach of the relevant prohibition. Which authorities have the powers of prosecution, investigation and enforcement in cases of money laundering? Authorities Money laundering. Where money laundering has allegedly been committed by an institution based in the City of London, it will generally be investigated by the Money Laundering Investigations Unit of the City of London Police.
If the matter relates to money laundering by a politically exposed person PEP , then the matter will usually be investigated by the International Corruption Unit within the NCA. However, if the case is linked to a serious fraud or corruption, the matter may be investigated and prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office SFO. Terrorist financing. The FCA also has the power to investigate and prosecute a firm or person it supervises for terrorist financing offences.
To help with compliance of the financial sanctions regime, OFSI maintains a consolidated list of sanctions targets in the UK. The Export Control Organisation part of the Department for International Trade is the authority responsible for implementing trade sanctions in the UK.
Inward Investment and Corporate Services
The FCA can also investigate and prosecute a firm or person it supervises for sanctions violations. For more information on the prosecuting authorities see box: The authorities. Prosecution powers See above, Authorities. Power of arrest See Question 3, Power of arrest. Court orders or injunctions The courts have the power to grant restraint orders under POCA, prohibiting the subject from dealing with specified property. A restraint order may include a provision authorising the detention of lawfully seized property. For more information on restraint proceedings, see Question The courts also have the power to make a restraint order under the TA , where it appears to the court that a forfeiture order may be made.
On 31 January , provisions of the Criminal Finances Act CFA amending POCA came into force allowing the High Court, on application by the relevant enforcement authority, to be able to grant an unexplained wealth order UWO where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the lawfully obtained income of a respondent a politically exposed person or someone reasonably suspected to have been involved in or associated with serious crime would have been insufficient for the purposes of obtaining the property in question, provided the value of that property is greater than GBP50, UWOs essentially require the respondent to explain how the specified property was obtained.
If the UWO is not complied with, the property is presumed to be recoverable, to assist any subsequent civil recovery action. It is a criminal offence knowingly or recklessly to make false or misleading statements in response to a UWO. While investigations into alleged sanctions violations take place, the authorities can apply for freezing injunctions over any assets believed to be involved. Such injunctions, if granted, place restrictions on how assets can be dealt with or disposed.
See also Question 3.
- Latest News - Wednesday, 25 September 12222.
- Nonstandard Analysis, Axiomatically.
- Roofing & cladding systems : a guide for facility managers?
- Zen and the Art of Poker: Timeless Secrets to Transform Your Game.
- FinanceMalta Investment Guide and Business Directory by CountryProfiler - Issuu!
- Financial crime in the UK (England and Wales): overview | Practical Law;
See Question 4. For all offences, bail is available pre- and post-charge in the usual way. The following penalties apply to the offences under POCA:. Confiscation orders, through which the proceeds of the criminal conduct can be confiscated, may also be imposed by the court. Directors of companies may be disqualified from continuing to hold appointments as directors in certain circumstances following a conviction for money laundering offences.
Public authorities are required to exclude from public contracts all organisations that have been convicted of a money laundering offence under POCA. Civil recovery orders and cash forfeiture may also be used to recover criminal property outside of criminal proceedings. Neither of these remedies requires securing a criminal conviction. Similarly, criminal taxation is a non-conviction based power that allows tax to be charged on a person's income, profits or gains where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are derived from criminal conduct.
Courts can also make an order for compensation to be paid to any victim that has suffered losses. Corporate offenders convicted of financial crime will be sentenced according to the ten-step process set out in the UK Sentencing Council's Definitive Guideline for Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Offences, which came into force on 1 October Prior to the PCA coming into force on 1 April , breaches of financial sanctions were punishable by up to two years in prison.
The PCA extended the maximum sentence available for breaches of financial sanctions to seven years. Financial record keeping What are the general requirements for financial record keeping and disclosure? The obligation on companies to keep adequate accounting records is governed by the Companies Act Companies Act Section provides that companies must maintain adequate accounting records that are sufficient to both:. Show and explain the company's transactions.
Financial crime in the UK (England and Wales): overview
Disclose, with reasonable accuracy, the financial position of the company at any time. Day to day entries of all sums of money received and expended by the company and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure takes place. A record of the assets and liabilities of the company.
Section provides that the records must be kept at the company's registered office or other place thought fit by the company's directors and must at all times be open to inspection by the company's officers. The records must be preserved for a period of:. Three years in the case of a private company. Six years in the case of a public company. Unless a company is exempt by virtue of its small size determined by reference to annual turnover, assets and number of employees or dormancy, independent auditors must be appointed to audit the annual accounts for each financial year s ection An auditor is granted the right at all times to access the company's books and accounts and to require any officer or employee among others to furnish him with such information or explanations as he deems necessary for the performance of his duties.
However, an auditor cannot compel the disclosure of information which is legally privileged section What are the penalties for failure to keep or disclose accurate financial records? Companies Act offences An offence is committed by every officer of a company who is in default if a company fails to comply with either:. The duty to keep adequate accounting records. The requirement to make accessible and preserve those accounting records section It is a statutory defence for a defendant to show that he acted honestly and that, in the circumstances in which the company's business was carried on, the default was excusable sections 2 and 2.
Under section it is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to make a misleading, false or materially deceptive statement to a company's auditor in response to any request for information or explanation that the auditor is statutorily entitled to require. It is also an offence to make, or be privy to the making of, a false entry in such a document. This offence can also be committed through the omission or alteration of information.
It is a defence to this charge if the company officer can prove that they had no intention to conceal the state of affairs of the company or to break the law. Theft Act offences Under section 17 of the Theft Act Theft Act , an offence of false accounting is committed where a person, dishonestly and with a view to gain for himself or with intent to cause loss to another, either:. Destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or document made or required for any accounting purpose. In furnishing information for any purpose, produces or makes use of any account or document made or required for any accounting purpose which to his knowledge is or maybe misleading, false or materially deceptive.
Where the facts of a case are particularly complex, false accounting often offers prosecutors the best prospect of a successful prosecution and for this reason it remains a popular charge with UK prosecutors. Under section 19 of the Theft Act, a company director or other officer commits an offence if, with intent to deceive members or creditors about the company's affairs, he publishes or concurs in publishing a written statement or account which, to his knowledge, is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.
The maximum penalty for both offences is seven years' imprisonment. Are the financial record keeping rules used to prosecute white-collar crimes? Each of the offences under the Companies Acts and the Theft Act outlined above is capable of being prosecuted in isolation or alongside supplementary white collar criminal charges. There have been notable instances where UK prosecutors have brought charges of a "books and records" nature against companies to dispose of offences of bribery and corruption.
By way of example, BAE Systems plc BAE pleaded guilty in to an offence of failing to keep accurate accounting records, in relation to allegations that bribes were paid on BAE's behalf in a number of jurisdictions. The BAE settlement was, however, a product of its time. Having re-emphasised the SFO's role as a prosecutor and now armed with the option of charging a company with a strict liability offence under section 7 of the Bribery Act providing the relevant conduct took place on or after 1 July , it is unlikely that the SFO would seek to dispose of corruption allegations in this way.
Due diligence What are the general due diligence requirements and procedures in relation to corruption, fraud or money laundering when contracting with external parties? Due diligence is considered a key requirement for a commercial organisation seeking to implement adequate procedures under the Bribery Act Guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice recommends the adoption of a risk-based approach to conducting due diligence in conjunction with appropriate risk assessment and anti-bribery terms and conditions.
Independent legal professionals, financial institutions and members of certain professions are also subject to the due diligence requirements imposed by the Money Laundering Regulations MLR. Many firms which are not the subject of legal requirements to conduct due diligence will still be required to observe the regulatory requirements. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority requires firms to put in place systems and controls to prevent financial crime.
The exact procedures that should be followed are not specified. Instead, under both the legal and regulatory requirements, firms are expected to take a risk-sensitive approach to their due diligence. Certain low-risk entities, such as UK public bodies, may require only simplified due diligence, whilst higher-risk entities or transactions may merit additional checks and monitoring. Customer due diligence is specified in the MLR to mean verifying the customer's identity, verifying the beneficial owners of the customer and the ownership and control structure, and obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship.
In practice, the level of due diligence that needs to be conducted can vary from simple and appropriate questioning of a customer to investigations, monitoring and independent reviews of high-risk external parties. Contractual rights of audit and inspection to confirm compliance with contractual terms have typically been constrained to long-term contracts in the public sector.
If an organisation takes a right of audit or inspection, it will be important that this right is reviewed and exercised appropriately to demonstrate that the adequate or reasonable procedures were in place. Corporate liability Under what circumstances can a corporate body itself be subject to criminal liability? There are two main types of corporate criminal liability at common law:.
Vicarious liability. For certain offences, companies can be held criminally liable for the unlawful acts of their employees and agents under the principle of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability generally applies to strict liability offences. It is most commonly imposed by statute and tends to feature in quasi-regulatory areas of criminal law such as health and safety, food and drug safety and environmental law. The identification principle, or "directing mind" liability.
For serious offences that do not impose strict liability, a company will only normally be criminally liable where the commission of the offence can be attributed to someone who at the material time was the "directing mind and will" of the company Lennard's Carrying Co. It will normally only be senior officers of a company, at or close to board level, whose acts are capable of being imputed to the company in this way.
Certain specified criminal offences, such as insider dealing and the cartel offence, only apply to individuals and are incapable of being committed by corporations. The Corporate Manslaughter Act deals only with corporate conduct that results in a person's death and is therefore outside the scope of this guide. For an overview of the Bribery Act, see Questions , Bribery and corruption. The Criminal Finances Act introduced two new strict liability offences, making commercial organisations liable for failing to prevent the criminal facilitation of UK and, in certain circumstances, non-UK tax evasion by an associated person sections 45 and The definition of a person associated with a commercial organisation includes an employee or agent, acting in their capacity as such, or a person who performs services for it or on its behalf section An organisation will have a complete defence if it can show that either:.
It had reasonable procedures in place to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. It was not reasonable in all the circumstances for the organisation to have any such prevention procedures in place. It is difficult to prosecute companies for most criminal offences because the threshold for criminal liability attaching to a corporate entity is high.
For proposed reform in this area, see Question Cartels Are cartels prohibited in your jurisdiction? How are cartel offences defined? Under what circumstances can a corporate body be subject to criminal liability for cartel offences? In regulated industries such as communications, electricity and gas, civil aviation, water, and more recently financial services , the CMA shares its civil enforcement powers with the relevant sector regulator.
Section 2 1 of the Competition Act sets out the so-called "Chapter 1 prohibition". It is modelled on EU law and prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices, which both:. May affect trade within the United Kingdom. Have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom. The civil Competition Act prohibitions do not apply to individuals. Under section of the EA , it is a criminal offence for an individual to agree to make or implement, or cause to be made or implemented, certain prohibited arrangements price fixing, limiting or preventing supply or production, market sharing and bid rigging relating to at least two undertakings.
The offence applies only to horizontal agreements between parties at the same level in the supply chain, and can only be committed by individuals. It is committed irrespective of whether the agreement is implemented, and irrespective of whether the individuals concerned have authority to act on behalf of their employers. No proceedings can be brought in respect of an agreement made outside the UK, unless it has been implemented in whole or in part in the UK.
In criminal prosecutions relating to agreements made on or after 1 April , the prosecution does not have to prove that a defendant acted dishonestly. However, section A excludes agreements that are made openly that is, where relevant information about the arrangements is to be published or given to customers prior to implementation. Section A also provides an exclusion for agreements made in compliance with a legal requirement under UK law or any applicable EU law. In addition to the exclusions, section B provides a defence where there was no intention to conceal the nature of the arrangements, or where reasonable steps were taken to seek legal advice on them.
Since the amended cartel offence has yet to be prosecuted, it is unclear how section B would apply where a defendant had sought and received appropriate legal advice but failed to follow it. In the absence of judicial guidance, it is too early to tell what the typical penalty is in practice. To date only five people have been convicted of the offence. The first was in R v Whittle and others  EWCA Crim known as the "Marine Hose case" , but due to the unique circumstances surrounding the three defendants' guilty pleas in that case the sentences imposed cannot be taken as a guideline.
The fourth conviction in was a guilty plea resulting in a sentence of six months' imprisonment, suspended for one year two further defendants were acquitted at trial. They include the power to require answers, information and documents; the power to enter and search premises under a warrant; and the power to conduct surveillance. Although the SFO also has the power to investigate and prosecute the cartel offence, the three prosecutions of the cartel offence to date have been undertaken solely by the CMA and its predecessor.
Immunity and leniency Deferred Prosecution Agreements DPAs , which have been available to the SFO and CPS since February , are a discretionary tool which, subject to judicial approval, may be used as an alternative to criminal prosecution in appropriate cases. They involve the suspension of a criminal indictment for an agreed period, in exchange for the defendant company fulfilling certain agreed requirements. If the DPA remains in force until its expiry date, the criminal proceedings are formally discontinued and fresh criminal proceedings may not be instigated except in certain limited circumstances.
DPAs are not available to individuals. Under sections 71 and 72 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act SOCPA , the SFO and other specified prosecutors have a wide discretion to offer conditional immunity notices and restricted use undertakings to offenders who agree to assist in the prosecution of others. An immunity notice is an agreement not to prosecute the offender, whereas a restricted use undertaking is an agreement not to use certain specified information as evidence against him.
Assisting offenders who plead guilty may also benefit from a reduction in sentence under section 73, although this remains at the discretion of the court. A separate regime operates in the cartels arena. The CMA offers co-operating undertakings different types of immunity or leniency, depending on whether the undertaking was the first to provide the CMA with evidence and whether the CMA had already started an investigation or had sufficient evidence of the alleged activity. Depending on the stage at which the information is provided, the undertaking may benefit from:. Automatic Type A immunity.
Type A or B civil immunity also results in automatic criminal immunity for all implicated current and former employees and directors who co-operate. Cross-border co-operation What international agreements and legal instruments are available for local authorities? Obtaining evidence The UK is party to a significant number of multilateral and bilateral mutual legal assistance MLA treaties.
These include, amongst others, the following multilateral agreements:. United Nations Convention against Corruption Bilateral agreements entered into with, amongst others, the United States , Brazil , Canada , Libya and Vietnam Section 7 of the Crime International Co-operation Act CICA enables judges and prosecutors in the UK to issue requests to obtain evidence from another country by way of a formal written request commonly referred to as a "letter of request". Section 9 2 of CICA provides that any evidence obtained by prosecutors in the UK pursuant to an MLA request may not be used for any purpose other than that specified in the letter of request, without the consent of the appropriate overseas authority.
A number of the provisions in POCA concern cross-border co-operation. Under section 74 of POCA, a prosecutor can send a request for assistance to another country, via the Secretary of State, to prohibit a person from dealing with realisable property in that jurisdiction. Because the power under section 74 is contingent on the application of section 40, its scope mirrors that for restraint orders. Therefore, it can be exercised:. Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct. To prevent the dissipation or hiding of the realisable property.
As soon as a criminal investigation has begun, and prior to a person's arrest. Before such an order under section 74 can be effective over the specified assets, however, it must be recognised in the country where those assets are located. Sharing information The links, both formal and informal, between law enforcement agencies, within the UK and abroad, are becoming stronger. Any information disclosed to a UK law enforcement agency for example, by way of a SAR , could be shared with an overseas authority to whom the information is relevant.
A number of UK statutes provide explicit gateways for the passing of information both domestically and internationally for the purposes of the investigation and prosecution of crime, including the:. Serious Crime Act section Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act sections 17 to Serious Organised Crime and Police Act section As well as these statutory gateways and the formal MLA framework, there are a number of Memoranda of Understanding MoU in place which provide for the transfer of information between international regulatory authorities.
By way of example, the MoU entered into between the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Services Authority now the Financial Conduct Authority in expressly recognises that the information which is shared may be used for enforcement purposes, including criminal prosecution. Such information is in addition to that which is shared regularly on an informal, day-to-day basis by police forces such as the City of London police with other police forces around the world.
In what circumstance will domestic criminal courts assert extra-territorial jurisdiction? It is a well-established presumption of statutory interpretation in the UK that a statute will not have extra-territorial effect. An offence will generally only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place unless a statute specifically enables the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Examples of such offences and the underlying legislation include:. Fraud Fraud Act Terrorism Terrorism Act and Terrorism Act Failing to prevent bribery Bribery Act Failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion Criminal Finances Act The jurisdictional reach of the Bribery Act is particularly broad. Under section 7 of the Act, once it is established that a commercial organisation carries on a business, or part of a business, in the UK regardless of where it was incorporated , it may be guilty of failing to prevent bribery if an associated person bribes another person or a foreign public official for the benefit of the commercial organisation.
It is irrelevant whether the offences take place outside the UK or whether the associated person is unconnected with the UK. On 30 September , the Criminal Finances Act introduced a new strict liability offence for failing to prevent a foreign tax evasion facilitation offence section An organisation will have a complete defence if it can show that it had reasonable procedures in place to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion or that it was not reasonable in all the circumstances for the organisation to have any such prevention procedures in place. It would therefore appear that the UK courts have jurisdiction to prosecute even where the money laundering offence as opposed to the predicate offence is committed abroad.
Does your jurisdiction have any statutes aimed at blocking the assertion of foreign jurisdictions within your territory? Are there statutes aimed at blocking the assertion of foreign jurisdictions within their territory? The Extradition Act sets out a number bars to extradition, or reasons for refusing an extradition request that is made to the UK authorities. Such bars include situations where:. There is a possibility that the requested person will be sentenced to death.
The extradition would be incompatible with the requested person's human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The requested person would be prosecuted or sentenced in respect of an offence that they had already been convicted or acquitted of double jeopardy. Following a perceived imbalance in the UK's extradition arrangements with the US, a new "forum bar" was introduced into the Extradition Act by the Crime and Courts Act The "forum bar" operates to allow a court to bar an extradition request where a substantial measure of the requested person's conduct was performed in the UK and where it is in the interest of justice to do so, having had regard to a range of specified matters.
The Secretary of State is also granted the discretion, under the Protection of Trading Interests Act , to give directions to any person carrying on a business in the UK prohibiting compliance with any foreign law which would regulate or control international trade in such a way as to damage, or to threaten to damage, the trading interests of the UK. Whistleblowing Are whistleblowers given statutory protection? Workers are protected from detriment when whistleblowing, provided they make a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act as amended.
Workers can disclose, to the appropriate people, information about criminal activity, dangers to health and safety, miscarriages of justice or other serious malpractice. Personal grievances are therefore unlikely to be covered. Workers can make disclosures to certain specified persons or organisations or to their own organisation.
Many organisations now have confidential reporting policies that govern internal disclosures. Firms regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority PRA must comply with the FCA and PRAs rules regarding whistleblowing, which include putting in place mechanisms to allow employees to raise concerns internally and appointing a senior person to take responsibility for the effectiveness of these arrangements.
Most disclosures to the media will forfeit any protections for the worker. Independent contractors are not protected. Reform, trends and developments Are there any impending developments or proposals for reform? The leadership of the SFO is in a state of flux. It will be interesting to observe whether a change in leadership will result in a change in direction. Such as criticism casts a shadow on the DPA regime as an effective means on resolving allegation of corporate misconduct. It will be interesting to observe whether this trend continues.
A possible reform of the law in the UK around corporate criminal liability has long been on the agenda, particularly since the introduction of the strict liability offence in section 7 of the Bribery Act Calls were made for this strict liability model to be extended to other acts of financial crime, such as fraud and money laundering, together with the provision of an "adequate procedures" style defence.
The Ministry of Justice is yet to issue its response but the Solicitor General stated his view that there was a strong case for the creation of a new corporate criminal offence of failing to prevent economic crime. It remains unclear, however, how this agency will be staffed or whether it will be adequately funded. Market practice Companies have now had seven years to respond to the requirements of the Bribery Act Strong regulation and recent enforcement action have ensured that companies continue to develop their due diligence and compliance procedures.
Having compliance or legal involvement throughout all significant transactions or business processes has become common in many organisations that are looking to take preventative rather than purely responsive measures. Perhaps the most important step, is the rigour with which companies now conduct due diligence into any third parties they engage. Third parties have consistently been the weak link in many bribery prosecutions and companies now view this as the area of biggest risk. In addition, many organisations have taken steps to expand and improve their training programmes and complement existing traditional customer due diligence with an increasing use of electronic compliance systems, such as automated transaction monitoring.
The UK's central bank. Principal responsibilities. It is responsible primarily for maintaining monetary and financial stability and setting the UK's official interest rate. The Bank of England is also responsible for the supervision of financial market infrastructures and has powers to prosecute a limited number of offences related to that supervision. The CPS is the government department responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police and other investigative bodies in England and Wales. The CPS provides legal advice to the police and other investigative agencies during the course of criminal cases, decides whether a suspect should face criminal charges and conducts prosecutions at court.
It is the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales. It is responsible for investigating crimes involving taxes and other regimes it deals with. It is not responsible for deciding whether there should be a criminal prosecution, as this will be decided by the CPS or its equivalent in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It has the power to issue compound penalties in respect of certain offences and it is also the authority responsible for investigating certain trade sanction offences.
The FCA is an independent non-governmental body financed by the financial services firms it regulates. It is accountable to the UK Treasury and Parliament. It has a wide range of rule-making, investigative and enforcement powers. This includes the ability to prosecute persons in the regulated sector for certain criminal offences such as insider dealing and money laundering. The NCA is also the UK's financial intelligence unit and is the central authority for receiving suspicious activity reports in connection with suspected money laundering or terrorist financing offences.
The NCA does not have its own powers of prosecution. The main functions of the ICU are to:. Investigate money laundering in the UK resulting from:. Trace and recover the proceeds of international corruption. Whilst it sits within the NCA, it is a multi-agency centre. The NECC will be tasked with planning and coordinating operational responses across agencies. By bringing together their respective expertise and capabilities the NECC will seek not only to respond to criminal attacks, but also, by identifying emerging trends and risks in economic crime, to protect against and prevent criminal activity.
OFSI can also take civil or criminal enforcement action against those who breach those sanctions. The PRA is responsible for the prudential regulation and supervision of systematically important financial institutions. It currently is responsible for around 1, banks, building societies, credit unions, insurers and major investment firms. It has similar enforcement powers to the FCA. The SFO investigates and prosecutes cases of serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption. It works closely with a range of other agencies in the UK and overseas. The SFO has special compulsory powers to require the production of relevant documents and to require individuals to answer questions at interview under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act The DIT oversees The Export Control Organisation which maintains responsibility for issuing licences and controlling the export of strategic goods.
Online resources Bribery Act Guidance W www. Official Ministry of Justice guidance to help commercial organisations understand the sorts of procedures they can put in place to prevent bribery. Contains links to the Quick Start Guide and the Bribery Act Guidance to help commercial organisations prevent bribery. Free access to case law and legislation in a variety of jurisdictions. Contains official judgments of the majority of leading cases across all UK jurisdictions. EUR-Lex W www. This official EU website provides free access to EU law.
It also provides access to consolidated and amended versions of the legislation. This official UK government website is designed to provide comprehensive access to information and resources provided by the various ministries and departments of the government. Information is still being transferred from the previous ministerial websites, but the majority of this process has now been completed.
Policy documents, statistics and consultations are all available here. UK government website providing free access to legislation. Information may be out-of-date as amendments are added infrequently. David WilmerHale. W www. Professional qualifications. Solicitor, England and Wales Areas of practice.
White collar criminal defence; regulatory enforcement defence; corporate internal investigations; anti-bribery and money laundering compliance; sanctions. Non-professional qualifications. Currently advising a major German company in relation to compliance and its third-party adviser relationships around the world. Recently led a large compliance review on behalf of a major UK company of more than Adviser relationships in 65 countries. Currently acting for an individual in relation to the SFO prosecution of Alstom corruption. Currently advising a number of corporates and financial institutions in relation to their anti-bribery and corruption compliance programs.
Advising a number of corporates and financial institutions in relation to cross-border investigations. Representing an individual in a case involving allegations of fraudulent bankruptcy and usury, brought by the Italian authorities, in relation to the collapse of the Italian company Parmalat. Co-author of PLC's Bribery and corruption: negotiated settlements in a global enforcement environment. Regular commentator in national press on white collar crime issues. Solicitor, England and Wales. White collar criminal defence. An investment bank subject to a multi-jurisdictional investigation relating to investor fraud.
Editor of and contributor to the WilmerHale W. White collar criminal defence; financial services regulatory enforcement defence; corporate internal investigations; anti-bribery and money laundering compliance. LLB, Nottingham University, Recent transactions. Acting for a senior manager of a major UK bank in an FCA investigation concerning conflict management issues. Acting for several individuals under investigation for market misconduct by the FCA insider dealing, market abuse, disclosure of confidential information and anti-competitive practices. Advising corporates and financial institutions in relation to money laundering compliance and anti-bribery measures.
Regular contributor to the WilmerHale W. Regular contributor to Law and Enforcd. Defended clients in respect of investigations and enforcement proceedings initiated by authorities including the Serious Fraud Office, the Financial Conduct Authority and H. White collar criminal defence; investigations. Represents a client in the SFO investigation into Alstom. Was part of the team representing a large bank in a global investigation into alleged LIBOR manipulation.
English, French, Spanish. Member of the Young Fraud Lawyers Association. E blog on white collar crime issues. Barrister, England and Wales.
- 12222 Banking Regulatory Outlook?
- Inward Investment and Corporate Services.
- Banking Law and Practice.
- Navigating the trends of banking compliance regulations.
Defended clients in proceedings brought by the Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service and local or regulatory authorities, including allegations of fraud, money laundering, and bribery and corruption. Represented a client in extradition proceedings brought by the German state.