½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

View the related checklists about Conspiracy to defraud

Sentencing Guidelines for Corporate offenders—Fraud or VAT offences checklist

Sentencing Guidelines for Corporate offenders—Fraud or VAT offences checklist This Checklist summarises the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for sentencing corporate offences of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006), Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968), Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994) and Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA 1979) in the Crown Court and magistrates’ court. The Fraud Guidelines for corporate offenders can be accessed here: • Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guideline—Corporate offenders: fraud, bribery and money laundering—for use in cases involving corporates being sentenced in the magistrates’ court • Crown Court Sentencing Guideline—Corporate offenders: fraud, bribery and money laundering—for use in cases involving corporates being sentenced in the Crown Court The Sentencing Council also publishes a number of overarching guidelines, which should be considered in respect of all sentencing exercises. This includes: • Totality guideline (Crown Court) • Totality guideline (magistrates’ court) • General guideline—overarching principles (Crown Court) • General guideline—overarching principles (magistrates’ court) • Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea (Crown Court) • Reduction in...

View the related practice notes about Conspiracy to defraud

Conspiracy to defraud

Offence of conspiracy to defraudConspiracy to defraud is a common law offence which was expressly preserved by section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (CLA 1977) and is triable only on indictment.The offence requires that two or more individuals dishonestly conspire to commit a fraud against a victim. It is a very wide offence and catches conduct that might not constitute an offence but which, by reason of two or more people agreeing to do it with the requisite intent, it becomes an offence.Common law conspiracy is therefore wider than statutory conspiracy because it does not require the agreement to be in respect of the commission of a substantive criminal offence.The statutory offence of conspiracy is found in CLA 1977, s 1. The statutory offence requires a conspiracy that will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of an offence by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or would do so, but for the existence of facts that render the commission of the offence or any of...

Financial reporting orders [Archived]

Financial reporting orders [Archived] ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note is for background information only and is not being maintained. No new financial reporting orders can be made in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland from 3 May 2015. All existing financial reporting orders will remain active until their terms expire and the existing offence of breaching an order will remain available in relation to those orders until their expiry. Serious crime prevention orders are the sole means of imposing financial reporting requirements on a person convicted of a serious offence after this date. For further information see Practice Note: Serious crime prevention orders. Making a financial reporting order A financial reporting order (FRO) is made following conviction for a listed offence in addition to sentencing a defendant. The court only made an order if it was satisfied that the risk of the defendant committing another listed offence was sufficiently high to justify doing so. The listed offences are: • the offence of false accounting under section...

View the related precedents about Conspiracy to defraud

Corporate criminal liability—code of ethics

Corporate criminal liability—code of ethics 1 Introduction 1.1 [Insert organisation name] takes great pride in the way we conduct our business. Our Code of ethics embodies the standards and policies under which we operate. It applies to us all. Please take care to read the Code, understand it, and use it to guide you in your work. If you have any questions about the Code and its application, you should speak with [insert, eg your manager]. 1.2 [Insert organisation name] has a zero tolerance towards employees committing criminal acts. 1.3 From 26 December 2023, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 provides that where a senior manager, acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority, commits a relevant offence, the organisation is also guilty of the offence. 2 Senior manager 2.1 A senior manager is someone who plays a significant role in: 2.1.1 making decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of the activities of the organisation are to be managed or organised, or 2.1.2...

Corporate criminal liability board briefing

Corporate criminal liability board briefing Date: [insert date] 1 Introduction The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023) is intended to strengthen the UK’s fight against economic crime. One of the most significant elements of the ECCTA 2023 for commercial organisations is the expansion of corporate criminal liability for the actions of senior managers. 1.1 What’s the issue? The identification doctrine, established by the courts in 1971, is the legal test for deciding whether the actions and mind of a natural person can be regarded as those of a legal person. It is the main way in which criminal liability has been attributed to corporate entities. The doctrine requires that an offence must be committed by the ‘directing mind and will’ of a corporation to trigger attribution to the corporate itself. In practice, this was limited to the managing director or owner where they were also involved in the running of the company. This has always been a high bar for prosecutors, which the government has now significantly...

View the related News about Conspiracy to defraud

Sentencing for offences of cheating the revenue (R v Michael Richards and others)

Corporate Crime analysis: Are courts imposing harsher sentences for financial crime? Sean Larkin QC from QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers points out that, following the financial crisis, there has been a greater appetite to prosecute financial crimes, and R v Richards is an example of the range of sentences in cases of cheat in the current sentencing climate.

Victory for vishing victims

Corporate Crime analysis: On 21 September 2016, nine fraudsters were sentenced for up to seven years each and a total of 27 years for their part in a £113m vishing (voice phishing) scam. Narita Bahra, defence barrister at 2 Hare Court, represented one of the less culpable defendants and explains more.