An important misconception about the drivers behind the identification principle in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 is highlighted by Maia Cohen-Lask, partner, Corker Binning, in this week’s NLJ
Cohen-Lask notes that Serious Fraud Office v Barclays plc and another [2018] EWHC 3055 (QB), [2018] All ER (D) 186 (Nov), a major case where criminal liability could not, ultimately, be attributed to the directors, is ‘frequently cited as the leading driver for legislative change’. She explains why this view is based on a misdiagnosis, and why it’s important to understand this if future Serious Fraud Office prosecutions are to succeed.
Cohen-Lask writes: ‘All of this rhetoric obscures an important point: that the new senior manager route to corporate criminal liability would not, in fact, have led to a different outcome in Barclays.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
