Call for evidence outcome

Corporate liability for economic crime: call for evidence

• From: Ministry of Justice
• Published: 13 January 2017
• Last updated: 3 November 2020 — See all updates

This was published under the 2016 to 2019 May Conservative government

This call for evidence has closed

Read the full outcome

Government response

PDF, 374 KB, 28 pages

Detail of outcome

The government examined the case for reform of the law on corporate liability for economic crime by commencing an open call for evidence.

The call for evidence was concerned with criminal offences designed to punish and prevent economic crimes such as fraud, false accounting and money laundering when committed on behalf or in the name of companies.

It sought evidence on the extent to which the identification doctrine is deficient as a tool for effective enforcement of the criminal law against large modern companies.

It surveyed the options for reform of the law, whether reform is needed, asked for views as to suitability and the scope that would be most effective, the advantages and disadvantages of adoption and implications of change, particularly in terms of the costs to businesses associated with the implementation of prevention procedures.

After careful consideration and a further evidence gathering exercise, the government has concluded that the evidence submitted was inconclusive. Further work is required before considering any change to the law and the Government has commissioned an expert review by the Law Commission.

Details on the outcome of the Call for Evidence, the work undertaken since and the next steps are provided in the response paper.

---

Original call for evidence

Summary

The government is examining the case for reform of the law on corporate liability for economic crime by commencing an open call for evidence.

This call for evidence was held on another website.

This call for evidence ran from
13 January 2017 to 11:45pm on 31 March 2017

Call for evidence description

The call for evidence is concerned with criminal offences designed to punish and prevent economic crimes such as fraud, false accounting and money laundering when committed on behalf or in the name of companies.

It seeks evidence on the extent to which the identification doctrine is deficient as a tool for effective enforcement of the criminal law against large modern companies.

It surveys the options for reform of the law, if reform is needed, asks for views as to suitability and the scope that would be most effective, the advantages and disadvantages of adoption and implications of change, particularly in terms of the costs to businesses associated with the implementation of prevention procedures.

Published 13 January 2017
Last updated 3 November 2020 + show all updates

1. 3 November 2020

   Government response published.

2. 13 January 2017

   First published.