fraud

Subscribe to fraud via RSS

Motivated by a “visceral reaction” to large-scale economic crime, Nick Ephgrave lays out vision for a bolder, more pragmatic, and more proactive agency.

By Pamela Reddy and Matthew Unsworth

Whistleblowers, dawn raids, and cross-agency collaboration are all top of Nick Ephgrave’s agenda as he settles into his new role as Director of the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Taking to the stage for his inaugural speech at the Royal United Services Institute last week,[i] Ephgrave gave a glimpse into his ambitious (if optimistic) plans for the agency under his leadership.

Law_021_scales_sngleColClr

Individuals continue to face risk from prosecutions for economic crime, despite media focus on corporate criminal liability reforms.

By Stuart Alford KC, Mair Williams, and Matthew Unsworth

Four individuals have today appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court charged with fraud in connection with the collapse of UK café and bakery chain, Patisserie Valerie.[i] This follows a five-year investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) — codenamed “Operation Venom” — which was launched after the chain suddenly announced that its financial statements over successive years had been “mis-stated and subject to fraudulent activity”.[ii] Among those charged is former CFO, Christopher Marsh, who was arrested on suspicion of fraud when the scandal first emerged but was released on bail soon after.

While corporate criminal liability continues to dominate headlines ahead of reforms to be introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, the Patisserie Valerie charges serve as a reminder that there remains a risk of prosecution at the individual level. Indeed, this is the third case in which the SFO has charged individuals this year, and the agency is targeting a minimum 60% conviction rate of individual (as well as corporate) defendants between 2022 and 2025.[iii]

The proposal outlines 10 possible ways to strengthen corporate liability by both criminal and civil law reforms.

By Stuart Alford QC, Clare Nida, and Mair Williams

On 10 June 2022 the Law Commission published an eagerly anticipated set of proposals (the Options Paper) to overhaul criminal law as it applies to companies in the UK (see the summary here and full text here). The Law Commission is an independent commission created by Parliament to keep UK law under review and to recommend reforms. While the Options Paper holds back from making recommendations, it outlines 10 possible ways to strengthen corporate liability by both criminal and civil law reforms.

Two cases illustrate the narrow scope of application for exceptions to the without prejudice rule of legal privilege.

By Stuart Alford and Clare Nida

Background

In two recent judgments, the High Court found exception to the ‘without prejudice’ rule of legal privilege. The rule protects statements made by parties to a dispute (whether written or oral statements) in a genuine attempt to settle the dispute. There are certain situations in which this public policy justification will be outweighed by other factors if the fairness of judicial proceedings is at risk. Motorola Solutions, Inc. v Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd[1] and Berkeley Square Holdings v Lancer Property Asset Management Limited[2] clarify the scope of certain aspects of these exceptions, namely the “unambiguous impropriety”, misrepresentation/fraud, and the “Muller” exceptions.

Parties within a chain of transactions may face liability for dishonesty and assistance, even if they do not have actual knowledge of fraud.

By Stuart Alford QC and Yasmina Vaziri

The recent judgment in Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) & ors v. NatWest Markets plc & Anor [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch) provides a timely illustration of how the concepts of dishonesty and assistance may apply in a chain of transactions in which not all parties have actual knowledge of the fraud. In the case, the defendant bank and its subsidiary were found to be vicariously liable for dishonest assistance to fiduciary breaches by the directors of the insolvent claimant companies, despite not having actual knowledge of the directors’ fraud. The directors were found liable on account of their participation in trades executed by two employee traders in a carbon credit based carousel fraud scheme.

In a leading case, the Court examined the extent of the duty of care that a bank owes to its customers when executing their orders.

By Andrea Monks and Nell Perks

On 30 October 2019, the UK Supreme Court dismissed Daiwa’s appeal in the case of Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2019] UKSC 50. The decision marks the first successful claim for breach of the Quincecare duty that banks owe to their customers. Latham & Watkins expects to see further examination of the duty as instances of fraud continue to rise and the courts consider the degree of responsibility that banks should bear for stopping financial crime.

The Quincecare duty, which Justice Steyn set out in 1992, refers to an implied term of the contract between a bank and its customer that the bank will use reasonable skill and care in and about executing the customer’s orders. A bank will be in breach of this duty if it executes an order that it knows to be dishonestly given, shuts its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty, or acts recklessly in failing to make reasonable enquiries.

Buyers’ best defence against M&A fraud requires rigorous, pre-closing due diligence — when fraud is suspected, deal teams should seek legal advice and proceed with caution.

Oliver Browne, Richard Butterwick, Alanna Andrew, Frederick Brodie, Connor Cahalane, and Catherine Campbell

Recent high-profile fraud cases gravely illustrate how a failure to detect fraudulent activity can cause lasting damage to corporate value. In January 2019, publicly listed bakery chain Patisserie Valerie collapsed following allegations of a £40 million accounting fraud.

In our view, instances of fraud in the context of acquisitions are more common than is often thought. There can be (or have been) allegations of artificial inflation of reported revenues, revenue growth, and gross margins or other distortions — underlining the high stakes and public nature of M&A fraud allegations.

The best protection against fraud comes from specialist due diligence and an early emphasis on fraud detection pre-closing. Where concerns arise post-closing, English law provides some innate protections, but deal teams should seek legal advice early on to help navigate this complex area without causing further damage.

The new code aims to avoid customers being penalised for fraudsters’ actions.

By Andrea Monks and Nell Perks

Estimates indicate that fraudsters stole £1.2 billion from UK bank accounts in 2018 — a 16% increase on the previous year. UK Finance has described fraud as a “major threat to the UK”, and has confirmed that the finance industry is committed to tackling the issue. However, developments in banking that have led to quick and easy payment methods, combined with increasingly sophisticated cyber scams, mean that fraudsters continue to flourish.

There has been a particularly significant increase in authorised push payment (APP) fraud, in which a customer is tricked into making a payment to another account that is controlled by a criminal. Historically, victims of this sort of fraud have struggled to retrieve their money — only 23% of losses were returned last year.

English Supreme Court rules that there is no reasonable diligence requirement barring a fresh action to set aside a judgment obtained by fraud.

Oliver E. Browne and Alex Cox

Introduction

In Takhar v Gracefield Developments Limited and others [2019] UKSC 13, the English Supreme Court considered whether a party applying to set aside an earlier judgment on the basis of fraud is required to show that it could not have discovered the fraud by the exercise of reasonable diligence. The court unanimously ruled that there is no reasonable diligence requirement barring fresh actions based on fraud, and allowed the appeal.

Background

The appellant, Mrs. Takhar, acquired a number of properties in Coventry as part of a separation from her husband in 1999. She subsequently suffered personal and financial problems, largely as a result of the poor condition of the properties. In 2004, she became reacquainted with her cousin, Mrs. Krishan, whom she had not seen for many years. Mrs. Krishan and her husband, Dr. Krishan, agreed to provide financial help and practical assistance to Mrs. Takhar.

FCJ decision finds that mere suspicion of contamination resulting from a sold property’s past use constitutes a defect.

By Patrick Braasch and Christian Thiele

The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) has ruled that an abstract suspicion of contamination resulting from a sold property’s past use already constitutes a material defect — irrespective of the actual existence of any contamination. A seller’s failure to disclose the known usage history — which objectively gives rise to the suspicion of contamination — constitutes fraudulent conduct. As a consequence, the seller cannot invoke any contractual limitation of liability.

Case background

The FCJ’s judgment, dated 21 July 2017 (V ZR 250/15), involved a case in which the plaintiff had acquired from the defendant several plots of land that had been developed as a business park. In the notarized sale and purchase agreement, any liability of the defendant was excluded, with the exception of intent and fraudulent conduct. The defendant was aware that an asphalt mixing plant for regional road construction, as well as a sewage sludge retention basin, had been operated on the property from the 1960s until the 1980s. When the defendant acquired the property in 1989, the seller at that time represented that he was not aware of any soil contamination.