Anna Fletcher
Partner
Article
7
This is the fifth article in our "Understanding ECCTA" series, each of which focuses on a different aspect of the legislation. In this article, we focus on the employment and HR implications of the new corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud.
From 1 September 2025, where fraud is committed by persons "associated" with a large organisation with the intention of benefitting the organisation (or its clients) and the organisation does not have reasonable fraud prevention measures in place, an offence will have been committed.
For information on the detail of the offence and the application of Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) to your organisation generally, read our article 'Understanding ECCTA: New corporate offence of 'Failure to Prevent Fraud' – what do you need to know?'
For many organisations the key risk area will lie with employees and that is our focus in this article.
HR professionals will be aware that this is not the first "failure to prevent" offence in the UK. We already have failure to prevent bribery (Bribery Act 2010) and failure to prevent facilitation of tax evasion (Criminal Finances Act 2017). HR teams will therefore be familiar with the need to develop effective controls, including risk assessments and training, to ensure compliance with those duties.
The implementation date for the new corporate offence is fast approaching and the time for for general counsel and compliance leaders to act is now. Read our latest update for answers to common questions and guidance for general counsel and compliance leaders to prepare for the changes and implement effective fraud prevention measures.
If convicted, large organisations could face an unlimited fine and significant reputational damage.
While the new regime does not include provision for individual liability on the part of senior managers or directors, it is possible that individuals who have committed the fraud offence might be held personally liable under the relevant criminal offence.
Those working in regulated sectors will need to be mindful of any potential regulatory exposure too.
As mentioned above, the offence will only have been committed if "the organisation does not have reasonable fraud prevention measures in place".
There is no definitive checklist of what demonstrates "reasonable" fraud prevention, and the legislation does not set out prescribed steps. What is reasonable will depend on your businesses' size, structure, operations and risk profile. The greater the risk of fraud in the business (or a specific area), the stronger controls need to be.
Impacted organisations should consider the Government Guidance published in November 2024 which outlines six core principles to consider when designing a fraud prevention framework. The guidance is not binding, but it does provide a helpful structure to follow.
It suggests the nature and extent of exposure should be assessed in a way that is dynamic, documented and kept under regular review. There is also a clear expectation that organisations will at a minimum carry out a risk assessment (and document that they have done so).
What this looks like practically will differ across organisations, but in all organisations, it is likely to include leading by example and communicating / endorsing the organisation's stance on fraud prevention.
In practice that will mean:
The Guidance recognises that existing work does not need to be duplicated. It also makes clear that compliance processes for existing duties will not be sufficient in and of themselves.
Practically, organisations should consider:
Due diligence should be used to mitigate identified fraud risks. In practice, this will mean:
Fraud prevention only works in practice if the whole organisation knows what to do when they spot something suspicious. Establishing and maintaining robust communications and training programmes is very much at the heart of this.
Practically, this will mean:
Having the best compliance systems and processes in the world is of course of no use if you do not routinely monitor and review the effectiveness of their operation.
Fraud risks evolve, so prevention measures must be continuously assessed and adapted.
With all of this in mind, here are our key takeaways:
If you have any questions about the issues raised in this article, please get in touch with Anna Fletcher or Kiran Gosal. To receive future articles in our Understanding ECCTA series and related insights, sign up to our mailing list.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.