New Criminal Offences – Pensions Regulator’s Approach
The Pensions Regulator has published its guidance on its approach to the investigation and prosecution of the new criminal offences which came into force on 1 October 2021.
Such powers are in addition to the Pensions Regulator’s pre-existing powers to issue contribution notices to employers who sponsored a scheme at the relevant time, or a person connected with that employer for similar offences. Will they make a difference? Will they result in a change of behaviour? Time will of course be the ultimate judge. The Regulator has a range of powers under the Pensions Act 2004 most of which have never been used. Some are occasionally threatened or have even initially been pursued, only for the process to be stopped several years and several millions of pounds later. Some may argue of course that this is why new powers are needed.
The new criminal offences
The Pension Schemes Act 2021 amended the Pensions Act 2004 by inserting new criminal offences:
Offence of avoidance of employer debt (new section 58A Pensions Act 2004)
Act element:
The person does an act or engages in a course of conduct that:
- Prevents the scheme from recovering all or any part of the debt that is due from the employer under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995;
- Prevents such a debt becoming due;
- Compromises or otherwise settles such a debt; or
- Reduces the amount of such a debt that would otherwise become due.
Mental element:
The person must have intended the act or course of conduct to have such an effect.
Offence of conduct risking accrued scheme benefits (new section 58B Pensions Act 2004)
Act element:
The person does an act or engages in a course of conduct that detrimentally affects in a material way the likelihood of accrued scheme benefits being received (whether or not the benefits are to be received under the scheme).
Mental element:
The person must have known or ought to have known that the act or course of conduct would have that effect.
In relation to both offences
- Proceedings may be instituted by the Pensions Regulator and a person guilty of either offence is potentially liable to a fine and/or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
- The offences are not limited to employers and can effectively be committed by anyone, save for insolvency practitioners who are excluded.
- However - a person will not be guilty of either offence if they have a reasonable excuse for doing the act or engaging in the course of conduct.
- And - the offences are not brought into force retrospectively, so only acts after 1 October 2021 can be prosecuted.
The Pensions Regulator’s Approach
Interpretation of reasonable excuse
As part of considering whether to prosecute, where the ‘act element’ and ‘mental element’ is present, the Pensions Regulator would take into account whether there may be a reasonable excuse, on the basis of the following three factors:
- The extent to which the detriment to the scheme was an incidental consequence of the act or omission.
- The adequacy of any mitigation provided to offset the detrimental impact.
- Where no, or inadequate, mitigation was provided, whether there was a viable alternative that would have avoided or reduced the detrimental impact.
Other factors the Pensions Regulator identifies include the extent of communication with the trustees prior to the action, whether actions were compliant with fiduciary duties and professional duties where that is relevant.
Process for selecting cases for prosecution
If a case is brought to the Pensions Regulator’s attention - for example by a whistleblower, a member complaint or what the Regulator calls “our intelligence function” which might just mean reading the press - it will carry out a risk assessment looking at the funding level of the scheme and behaviour involved as well as internal considerations of available resources.
If the Pensions Regulator decides to take action, as there are some overlapping powers, it will need to decide whether the use of criminal powers is appropriate. Some of the factors that the Pensions Regulator considers relevant to this are whether:
- There is serious harm to the scheme and members as a consequence of the act;
- The person had extensive involvement or influence in the harm caused;
- Significant financial gains have been made to the detriment of the scheme;
- There has been some other unfairness in the treatment of the scheme; or
- The trustees have been misled, or there has been a lack of openness with the Pensions Regulator.
What effect will these new offences have in practice?
From now on those involved in corporate restructurings and transactions that may detrimentally impact a defined benefit scheme will need to carefully assess whether and how they might be affected by the new powers. They will need to consider the impact of the transaction on the pension scheme, how any detrimental impact can be avoided or mitigated and whether there is a reasonable basis for their actions. Comprehensive records covering the decision-making processes will be particularly important - in case the Regulator comes knocking.
There is no doubt that the new offences are broadly drafted and potentially may catch a wide range of activities, though the Regulator states that it is not intending to prosecute ordinary commercial activity. As ever, how the Pensions Regulator seeks to utilise its powers and applies its guidance will be critical in determining the efficacy of the new provisions. Over time how the Regulator interprets “ordinary commercial activities” will become clear. Until then, there is a new risk with corporate transactions where a defined benefit scheme is involved. No one wants to be a test case.
Our thinking
IBA Annual Conference
The IBA heads to Miami for its 2022 Annual Conference bringing together thousands hundreds of lawyers from around the world.
Stewart Hey
Reforming corporate criminal liability: a balancing act
A look into the published paper on corporate criminal liability by The Law Commission.
Jodie Martyndale-Howard
A New Era: English Language Litigation in the Kingdom of Bahrain
Over the past six months, there has been a significant shift in domestic litigation in the Kingdom of Bahrain.
Stephen Burns
PART 36— A move towards greater flexibility?
Discussing the possibility of the Part 36 regime opening up with recent developments.
Hanh Nguyen
The hurdles in establishing retrospective validation of post-petition dispositions
A discussion on the key takeaways from ICC Judge Barbers recent case ruling.
Tim Maxwell
Charles Russell Speechlys partners with London Art Week
We are proud to be partnering with London Art Week, supporting the world’s leading art galleries and auction houses.
Peter Smith
Building the Case for Family Business Arbitration in the GCC Region
The GCC has one of the highest concentrations of family businesses anywhere in the world.
Emma Preece
EG quotes Emma Preece on the Picturehouse and BNY Mellon rent arrears cases
“The case is being closely watched by landlords and tenants alike as the impact of the pandemic lives on in the commercial property sector”
Ghassan El Daye
The Business Breakfast interviews Ghassan El Daye on the legal procedures surrounding international extradition
The Business Breakfast interviews Ghassan El Daye on the legal procedures surrounding international extradition
Rachel Warren
Financier Worldwide quotes Rachel Warren on the UK’s Economic Crime Act
Evaluating the UK’s Economic Crime Act
Pierre Bydzovsky
Update on FIFA-related proceedings in Switzerland
An update on the TV rights appeal trial for the World Cups and the on-going trial against former FIFA president and former UEFA president.
Rose Carey
Could the UK’s Life Sciences Vision be restricted by its Immigration Policy?
We explore some of the visa options that may be open to businesses in the sector and their relative pros and cons.
Stephanie Bonnello
Stephanie Bonnello writes for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution blog on witness evidence
When are witness summaries permitted instead of witness statements and when should material be struck out from a witness statement?
Stephanie Bonnello
Witness evidence: when are witness summaries permitted instead of witness statements and when should material be struck out from a witness statement?
Witness summaries discussed in the libel case brought by Rebekah Vardy against Coleen Rooney.
Oliver Auld
Unexplained Wealth Orders & Trustees
Learn about Unexplained Wealth Orders, what they are, who can obtain them and the implications that exist for trustees.
Briony Richards
AI and HR - How can employers reduce the risks associated with using artificial intelligence to help manage their workforce?
If they are not mindful of the risks associated with AI, employers may find themselves in breach of employment and data protection law.
Katy Ackroyd
“Serious irregularity” in arbitration proceedings: section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 under the spotlight.
An analysis of an arbitration award set aside by the High Court on grounds that the arbitrator had breached his general duty of fairness.
Simone Sancandi
Sports Arbitration Rules and Roster of Dedicated Arbitrators
The Bahrain Chamber of Disputes Resolution publishes a brand-new set of Sports Arbitration Rules.
Nick Hawkins
Nick Hawkins writes for Employment Law Journal on demystifying employment contracts
Key considerations for drafting effective post- termination restrictions
Sara Sheffield
Developments in the UAE
The rising strength of the United Arab Emirates as a commercial powerhouse has continued as the Covid-19 pandemic recedes.