ENGLAND & WALES Law and Practice Contributed by: John Kaye and Piers Desser, Carson Kaye
For serious financial crime, legal aid may be granted where proceedings are complex, liberty is at stake or effective participation would otherwise be impaired. Defendants may be required to make income-based contributions towards legal costs. In addition, the Legal Aid Agency can impose a statutory charge, allowing it to recover costs from any future assets or property recovered or preserved as a result of the pro - ceedings or related litigation. 4.4 Venue and Specialisation Financial crime cases are generally dealt with within the ordinary criminal courts, but are often managed through specialist listings and case management structures designed for complex and high-volume evidence cases. Serious financial crime (including fraud, bribery, and market abuse) is typically tried in the Crown Court, often at centres with established expertise such as the Southwark Crown Court and the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey). Case progression is tightly managed through special - ist procedures and judicial case management to deal with extensive disclosure and expert evidence. There is no general right for a defendant to choose venue. For either-way offences, a defendant may elect Crown Court trial or summary trial in the Magistrates’ Court, but most financial crime cases are deemed too serious for summary jurisdiction and are therefore sent to the Crown Court. Allocation decisions are made by the court applying statutory criteria relating to serious - ness and sentencing powers. Financial crime cases are frequently allocated to judges with specialist experience in serious fraud and complex criminal litigation, particularly in designated fraud-heavy court centres, ensuring consistency in handling complex evidential and procedural issues. 4.5 Trial by Jury Most serious financial crime cases are tried before a jury in the Crown Court. There is a strong constitu - tional presumption in favour of jury trial for indictable
offences, including fraud, bribery, money laundering and market abuse. Defendants do not generally have a choice to opt in or out of a jury trial. For either-way offences, a defend - ant may elect Crown Court trial, but once a case is on indictment there is no ability to waive jury trial in favour of a judge-alone trial (save for limited statutory exceptions such as jury tampering concerns under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which are rarely used). Juries are selected randomly from the electoral regis - ter, with eligibility criteria including age (18–75), resi - dency and lack of disqualifying criminal convictions. The court may excuse jurors for good reason and challenges for cause or limited peremptory challenges are available. There have been periodic policy proposals to intro - duce judge-alone trials for complex fraud cases, par - ticularly where lengthy evidence or jury tampering risks are raised, most recently in the proposed The Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026 which is still passing through parliament. However, and jury trial remains the default position in financial crime cases. Despite their aspects of complexity, at the heart of many such cases is the question of dishonesty, an assessment of which a jury is well placed to determine. 5. Corporate Liability, Compliance and Defences 5.1 Corporate and Individual Liability In England and Wales, companies and individuals can be prosecuted at the same time for the same underly - ing conduct. A company is typically liable where the “directing mind and will” (senior individuals) commit - ted the offence, or under strict liability regimes such as failure to prevent bribery or facilitation of tax evasion. Individuals remain personally liable where evidence supports their involvement. Within corporate groups, liability is generally separate for each legal entity. Parent companies are not auto - matically liable for subsidiaries, but risk arises where they exercised control or were directly involved. Suc -
53 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook