• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Reforming corporate criminal liability: a balancing act

The Law Commission published its long-awaited options paper on corporate criminal liability to mixed reviews. Those who had hoped for a broad "failure to prevent" criminal offence were disappointed. However, the Commission's more incremental approach of introducing specific failure to prevent offences was greeted with relief by corporates that had feared the vast compliance burden of a broad offence.

The Law Commission (the Commission) published its long-awaited options paper on corporate criminal liability on 10 June 2022 to mixed reviews. Those who had hoped for a broad “failure to prevent” criminal offence were disappointed. However, the Commission’s more incremental approach of introducing specific failure to prevent offences was greeted with relief by corporates that had feared the vast compliance burden of a broad offence.

The paper sets out the government’s options for improving the law to hold to account corporates that commit serious crimes. In addition to the failure to prevent offences, the key focus of the paper is on the attribution of corporate criminal liability, the liability of senior management, penalties and reporting obligations.

The problem of corporate liability

The paper references Ministry of Justice statistics which show that, between January and September 2020, there were over 5,000 convictions of companies or other non-natural persons. Many of these were for offences such as breaches of environmental regulations, which were created with companies in mind. However, offences such as fraud can cause difficulties when it comes to corporates. Many criminal offences require a particular state of mind; whether that is intention, knowledge, recklessness or dishonesty, and this raises the question of whose state of mind is to be attributed to a corporation.

The general rule for attributing criminal liability to companies is the identification doctrine. A company will usually only be liable for criminal conduct by one or more natural persons that represent its controlling mind and will. This contrasts with the position in the US, for example, where under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may automatically be answerable for the conduct of its employee by virtue of vicarious liability.

With its focus on a limited number of directors and senior managers, the identification doctrine raises practical difficulties when seeking to hold to account and prosecute large companies. Decision making can be diffuse or there may be doubt over whether individuals had the necessary authority to engage in the conduct in question.

As Professor Penney Lewis, the Law Commissioner for Criminal Law, stated on publication of the paper, there is broad consensus that the law must go further to ensure that corporates, especially large companies, can be convicted of serious criminal offences such as fraud (see box1Law Commission review").

The options

The paper puts forward ten reform options, which may be summarised under four categories.

Attribution of criminal liability. The Commission considered alternative approaches to the attribution of criminal liability, including the attribution of the criminal acts of any employee to their employer and conviction by reference to a company’s culture or systems. However, it rejected both of these: the former would represent a fundamental shift in liability, lacked support from stakeholders and raised practical concerns on appropriate prosecutorial safeguards; while the latter, acknowledged as interesting and potentially promising, was not recommended for a wholesale reform.

The Commission put forward the following two options:

  • Retaining the existing identification doctrine.
  • Reforming the identification doctrine by widening its scope to cover the conduct of a member of the senior management team, being any person who plays a significant role in decision making or actual management of the whole or a substantial part of the organisation’s activities. This could be extended further so that CEOs or chief financial officers would always be considered to be members of senior management.

For crimes of negligence, the Commission concluded that it should be possible to convict on the basis of collective negligence, rather than having to identify a natural person who was negligent.

In the absence of reform to the identification doctrine, the Commission noted that the case for additional measures, such as failure to prevent offences, would be even more compelling.

Failure to prevent offences. Failure to prevent offences already exist in the context of bribery and tax evasion (see feature articles “Bribery Act 2010: ten years on” and “Facilitation of tax evasion: new offences of failure to prevent”). The Commission proposes extending the offences to capture other economic corporate crimes, including an offence of failure to prevent fraud by an employee or agent, which would apply where a corporation has failed to put in place appropriate measures to prevent fraud being committed for the corporation’s benefit.

The paper sets out some general principles for future failure to prevent offences, including that:

  • Liability would arise only where the conduct was undertaken by an employee or agent with a view to benefitting the corporation directly or indirectly by assisting a client (unless the intention was to harm the corporation).
  • As with the defence to existing offences, a corporation would have a defence if it could prove that it had in place reasonable prevention procedures or it was reasonable not to have these procedures in place. The government should publish guidance on what these procedures might be.
  • There should not be a presumption that the offence would extend to conduct carried out by employees or agents overseas, but rather it should be considered in the context of the specific offence.

The Commission also put forward three other offences for which a failure to prevent model might be appropriate, covering human rights abuses, ill-treatment or neglect, and computer misuse. It noted that further work would be necessary on the scope of these offences.

Senior management liability. The Commission concluded that, in principle, directors and senior managers should not be personally criminally liable on the basis of neglect if the offence is one that requires proof of a particular mental state. This conclusion was driven by perceived inconsistency in existing legislation, and its application, on this issue.

Penalties. The paper notes that, in general, the only penalty available to courts when sentencing non-natural persons is a fine. The Commission rejected the option of winding up a company on conviction for a serious offence, in part because powers to similar effect already exist. Instead, the Commission’s view is that there would be value in making publicity orders more widely available, notably for public bodies or charities, but also for smaller enterprises with a local, but not national, reputation, given the constraints on the ability of local media to cover court cases.

Reporting obligations

The paper contemplates options under which corporations might be subject to civil procedures, such as where the decision makers did not act deliberately or dishonestly, which would avoid occupying the criminal justice system with regulatory cases. The options put forward are:

  • The introduction of a regime of monetary penalties.
  • The ability to pursue civil actions in the High Court.
  • Reporting obligations on larger companies to disclose their anti-fraud procedures.

Response to the paper

On the day of its publication, the paper came in for fierce criticism from various bodies for not going far enough and letting corporations off the hook. It is true that the paper deliberately steers away from radical reform, ruling out a broad-brush failure to prevent offence and instead opting for an incremental approach, starting with fraud. This is no doubt informed by the need to avoid placing burdensome administrative requirements on corporations, which will also be relieved that the Commission did not propose options such as a move towards US-style vicarious liability.

The problematic identification doctrine would remain, although the proposed modifications would represent a significant expansion, with focus extending beyond the board of a company or the “total delegation” of authority by it.

The paper also raises interesting questions from an environmental, social and governance angle, with a number of the options placing emphasis on governance and a move towards greater transparency with reporting obligations (see feature article “ESG standards and ratings: know the score”). Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see whether the other new failure to prevent offences that the Commission put forward, such as those concerned with human rights, will gain traction.

In terms of next steps, it is now up to the government to decide how to proceed. Should it decide to pursue any new offences or modifications to the identification principle, there will no doubt be further consultation, with the prospect of reform in the short term unlikely.

Law Commission review

The Law Commission’s (the Commission) options paper follows its review of the law on corporate criminal liability. In November 2020, the government tasked the Commission with performing a balancing act: it was to examine the issue of attribution of corporate criminal liability and produce an assessment of different options for reform, but ones that avoided disproportionate burdens on business (see News brief “Reform of corporate criminal liability: two ways about it”). A particular focus was placed on economic crime, such as fraud, tax evasion, bribery and money laundering.

The Commission’s terms of reference included:

  • Whether the identification doctrine is fit for purpose when applied to organisations of differing sizes and scales of operation.
  • Examining other ways in which criminal liability may be imposed on corporates under the current criminal law of England and Wales.
  • Whether an alternative approach to corporate liability for crimes may be provided in legislation.

This article was first published in PLC Magazine July 2022 issue

Our thinking

  • Has a new route to recovery opened up for victims of banking payment frauds?

    Katie Bewick

    Insights

  • New Tools for Fraud and Asset Tracing between Hong Kong and China?

    Stephen Chan

    Insights

  • Thomas Snider, Reem Faqihi and Dalal Alhouti discuss the impact of technology on the arbitration landscape for Legal Community MENA

    Thomas R. Snider

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises Europlasma in takeover bid of MG-Valdunes

    Dimitri A. Sonier

    News

  • Breaking Barriers: The Tech Revolution in Arbitration

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Fashion and the Green Claims Code brought into focus by open letter from the CMA.

    Ilona Bateson

    Quick Reads

  • Charles Russell Speechlys grows its rankings in The Legal 500 EMEA directory

    Frédéric Jeannin

    News

  • Forbes quotes Gareth Mills on the US government’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple

    Gareth Mills

    In the Press

  • The role of national courts in arbitration

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys expansion into Singapore accelerates with new Partner hire

    Peter Brabant

    News

  • Embracing AI's potential in arbitration

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Thomas Snider, Patrick Gearon and Dalal Alhouti discuss the impact of AI on international arbitration for Legal Community MENA

    Thomas R. Snider

    In the Press

  • Stewart Hey, Hugh Gunson and Rachel Warren write for Solicitor's Journal on the cum-cum scandal

    Stewart Hey

    In the Press

  • Drafting the “perfect” arbitration agreement

    Alim Khamis FCIArb

    Insights

  • Peter Smith shares his thoughts on digital asset disputes for Legal Community MENA

    Peter Smith

    In the Press

  • A Modern Marriage: How AI Powered By Blockchain Could Protect IP Rights

    Shennind Awat-Ranai

    Insights

  • Unlocking Digital Asset Disputes: Strategies for Success

    Peter Smith

    Insights

  • Expert Evidence - Avoiding fatal failure

    Claudine Morgan

    Insights

  • ESG in the Arbitration Arena: Balancing Act or Game Changer?

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Win - UK Court Acquittal for John Mason in High-Profile Bribery Case

    Caroline Greenwell

    News

  • Will new powers at Companies House stop or slow down fraudsters?

    Peter Carlyon

    Quick Reads

  • Patrick Gearon and Peter Smith share their perspectives on navigating ESG considerations in arbitration for Legal Community MENA

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys hosts international arbitration event in Dubai

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Dawn raids... a new dawn?

    Rhys Novak

    Quick Reads

  • Abu Dhabi’s New Arbitral Centre Unveils its Rules

    Dalal Alhouti

    Quick Reads

  • Dubai Court of Cassation Extends Arbitration Agreement Across Subsequent Contracts

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • Nigeria's challenge to US$11 billion award succeeds in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales

    John Olatunji

    Quick Reads

  • An important reminder for employers on World Menopause Day

    Isobel Goodman

    Quick Reads

  • UAE Polishes Federal Arbitration Law

    Peter Smith

    Quick Reads

  • What next for HS2?

    Richard Flenley

    Quick Reads

  • Mediation as a pillar of dispute resolution: it’s happening, embrace it

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • A warning to all businesses: significant fine underscores the importance of maintaining workplace Health & Safety

    Rory Partridge

    Quick Reads

  • Product compliance and Brexit - UK Government concedes to CE markings indefinite recognition

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • Recognising financial abuse in a relationship

    Vanessa Duff

    Quick Reads

  • Has the Orpéa plan impaired shareholder's consent? - Le plan de sauvegarde d'Orpéa n'a-t-il pas vicié le consentement des actionnaires historiques ?

    Dimitri-André Sonier

    Quick Reads

  • Don’t push it… Quincecare duty clarified

    Caroline Greenwell

    Quick Reads

  • Pandora Papers: HMRC nudge taxpayers to come out of their box

    Hugh Gunson

    Quick Reads

  • DIAC Issues First Annual Report

    Georgia Fullarton

    Quick Reads

  • Dispute Resolution: The Case for Mediation

    Marjan Mirrezaei

    Quick Reads

  • Machinery Regulations respond to the rise of AI

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

Back to top