Compliance
Many Firms Still Aren't Ready For UK's Fraud Prevention Regime – Dentons

The new law, introduced under 2023 legislation, is extra-territorial in its scope – so businesses and firms outside the country that have UK links are potentially in the net. FTP is a strict liability offence – there is no need for authorities to prove intent.
  A new UK “failure to prevent fraud” (FTP) law kicked in yesterday
  – potentially covering even firms outside the country that have
  UK links, such as wealth managers. 
  
  However, it appears that many organisations are not fully
  prepared, leaving them open to punishments from the Serious Fraud
  Office (SFO) which has signalled that it is keen to flex its
  muscles.
  
  Dentons said in a
  statement that as of June this year, just under a third (30
  per cent) of firms it has spoken to hadn’t appointed anyone to
  watch over FTP compliance; of the 70 per cent who had taken
  measures, most gave such responsibilities to compliance teams
  already stretched by other tasks. Worryingly, Dentons said, 78
  per cent had not completed or even started fraud risk assessment,
  which is part of the “reasonable procedures” set out in
  government guidance.
  
  The new offence has been brought in as part of the Economic Crime
  and Corporate Transparency Act, which received Royal Assent on 26
  October 2023 under the previous Conservative government. Like the
  UK Bribery Act of 2010, there is an extra-territorial aspect to
  this law – meaning that firms above a certain size which have
  activities overseas cannot assume that these are out of bounds.
  (See a 
  detailed outline by WealthBriefing compliance expert
  and writer Chris Hamblin.)
  
  There is a lot at stake. In a recent presentation, Moody's said
  that £1.17 billion ($1.6 billion) was lost in 2024 to
  unauthorised and authorised fraud; some 3.13 million cases of
  unauthorised fraud were reported last year, rising 14 per cent
  from 2023. Fraud makes up 40 per cent of all crime in the UK.
  (See
  an article here.) 
  For definition purposes, "authorised fraud" is typically a
  scam whereby a fraudster manipulates a victim into
  voluntarily sending a payment from their own account to a
  fraudulent account.
  
  Toolkit
  Responding to the findings of its own fact-finding, Dentons has
  launched a “FTP Toolkit” to help organisations assess and address
  gaps in their fraud prevention measures.
  
  FTP creates a strict liability criminal offence for in-scope
  companies that fail to prevent fraud by individuals associated
  with them, where the fraud benefits the organisation or its
  customers. The only defence is to demonstrate that reasonable and
  proportionate fraud controls were in place.
  
  SFO director Nick Ephgrave has made no secret of his desire to go
  after wrongdoers to prove such laws apply. Dentons quoted him as
  saying: "I'm very, very keen to prosecute someone for [this]
  offence. We can't sit with the statute books gathering dust
  – someone needs to feel the bite."
  
  Sarah Partridge-Smith, counsel and fraud specialist in Dentons’
  regulatory and investigations team and lead developer of the
  toolkit, said in a note about FTP: “The introduction of FTP marks
  a significant shift in the UK’s corporate fraud landscape. It is
  a strict liability offence, meaning companies will not be able to
  rely on good intentions or retrospective justifications in place
  of robust, proportionate and bespoke fraud prevention measures.
  Our data shows that there is still a lack of preparation across
  industry, which is understandable given today’s competing
  compliance workload. However, with the offence coming into force
  on 1 September, there is now an urgent need for in-scope firms to
  ensure that they are sufficiently protected."
  
  Other law firms have noted the start of FTP, hoping it will clamp
  down on wrongdoing, while sounding a cautionary note on how the
  law may apply. 
  
  “The new failure to prevent fraud offence is a real gamechanger,
  both in terms of the risk of corporate prosecutions for fraud and
  what regulators now expect from anti-fraud compliance
  programmes,” Andrew Reeves, partner at Norton Rose
  Fulbright, said in an emailed note. 
  
  Katie Stephen, a colleague and partner at the same firm, said:
  "If a fraud takes place, organisations may need to demonstrate
  that they have effective anti-fraud procedures at all levels and
  [have] kept these under review. They should continually enhance
  their controls to reflect any new and emerging fraud risks, as
  this could help in securing a defence. Financial crime is high on
  the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) agenda so failures to
  prevent fraud could lead to civil fines and other serious
  consequences for regulated firms, as well as members of their
  senior management teams."
  
  The Personal Investment Management & Financial Advice
  Association, or PIMFA,
  the UK wealth management body representing firms, noted that the
  FTP offence will make it easier for authorities to go after
  offenders. 
  
  “While PIMFA welcomes the new offence, which will encourage
  investment in internal governance processes and improve
  transparency, increased levels of accountability naturally create
  new challenges for firms to navigate,” Alexandra Roberts, head of
  regulatory policy and compliance at PIMFA, said in a statement
  emailed to WealthBriefing. “At the same time, to help
  firms avoid falling foul of the new offence, there is a need for
  the government to provide greater clarity around what constitutes
  reasonable procedures.”
  
  “The offence marks a significant shift in emphasis around fraud,
  firmly placing responsibility on the shoulders of firms. The onus
  is now on firms to demonstrate they have robust internal systems
  and staff training in place to prevent fraud. The days where
  firms could deal with fraud on a purely reactive basis are now
  long gone, as the new offence compels firms to take a proactive
  approach to mitigating fraud risk within their organisations. The
  offence also forces firms to consider outward fraud, where the
  firm is the beneficiary, as well as inward fraud, where the
  firm is the victim,” Roberts said.