Skip to main content

Insight article

December 8, 2022

Protect SMEs from corporate criminal liability

The law treats corporations as separate legal entities, but to what extent can your employees' actions result in your business being found criminally liable?

Earlier this year, the UK Law Commission reviewed corporate criminal liability law. Find out how proposed changes to the legislation could get your company into a pickle!

It is easier to hold smaller companies accountable for wrongdoings than multi-million-dollar companies. However, the bigger a company gets, the harder it is to identify individuals responsible for criminal acts. The review aims to ensure fair treatment between organisations of different shapes and sizes. But will it achieve this?

The general rule for corporate criminal liability is the ‘identification doctrine’. Identification doctrine means that a company will generally only be held liable for the conduct of a person with the status and authority to constitute the company’s “directing mind and will”. In short, those persons with oversight and control of operations. So, for example, the directors of small businesses are likely to have oversight and control over all operations and therefore be the ones identifiable as the directing mind and will. In contrast, in large companies, the decision-making powers are diffused. Because of this, the UK Law Commission’s review is considering reforming the doctrine.

The Commission is also considering whether to introduce a new offence of “failure to prevent” certain criminal acts (e.g., fraud) by an employee or agent. By way of illustration, as things currently stand, a company employee could commit criminal acts to benefit the company. The company could escape liability by arguing that the employee in question is not ‘senior’ enough to be the directing mind and will. In this scenario, the company would benefit from the criminal act in question but escape liability. However, by introducing an offence of failing to prevent, companies will not escape liability unless they can demonstrate that they have established appropriate policies and procedures to prevent such criminal acts from being carried out in the company’s name.

The costs of introducing new procedures, policies, and training to ensure compliance with the Commission’s proposed changes may be high. Small businesses may need help to meet these, especially post-pandemic and especially considering recent economic forecasts. The key for any business is to understand the proposed changes and ensure that appropriate and proportionate measures are taken, considering the business’s sector, size and risk exposure.

Ensure you have the right policies and procedures in place to help protect your SME from corporate criminal liability. Contact corporate lawyer Evangelos Kyveris today.

Note: This article is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more

What they say...

  • Ian, April 2025
    “Martin and his team at Barker Gillette acted for us in our purchase and sale of property. The chain was lengthy and elements of the work became complex. Martin was tenacious and resolved to answer our queries as they arose. He handled all aspe

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

  • Hena, April 2025
    “Great experience, Patrick was very clear and gave time to explain the legal processes. Friendly and professional communication made me feel comfortable asking questions, received great legal advice.”

  • Michael Constable, April 2025
    “I wanted to revise my will and appoint RIAA Barker Gillette as my Executor and Trustees. This was handled very efficiently and professionally. It helped that I had agreed a fixed fee in advance.” Review left for: Herman Cheung

Read more
Send this to a friend