UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Bambos Tsiattalou, Richard Cannon and Amjid Jabbar, Stokoe Partnership Solicitors
ery Act 2010, where an “associated person” commits bribery on an organisation’s behalf, as well as the Criminal Finances Act (CFA) 2017, which introduced corporate offences for businesses that fail to prevent their “associated persons” from criminally facilitating tax evasion. The overriding intention of the new legislation – to provoke companies into taking action, stepping up their compliance procedures, improving their process - es, being prepared and doing a much better job of fraud prevention – is both pragmatic and prudent. On the theme of deterrence, Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Director Nick Ephgrave outlined his agency’s plans to prosecute FTPF offences earlier in 2025: “Come September, if they [companies] haven’t sorted themselves out, we’re coming after them. I’m very, very keen to prosecute someone for that [FTPF] offence. We can’t sit with the statute books gathering dust – someone needs to feel the bite.” First Prosecution for Failing to Prevent Tax Evasion Under the Criminal Finances Act On 5 August 2025, Bennett Verby Ltd, an accountancy firm based in Stockport, became the first business to be charged under the Criminal Finances Act (CFA) 2017 with failing to prevent the facilitation of tax eva - sion. The CFA introduced new powers to charge com - panies and partnerships that failed to prevent their employees or associates from facilitating tax evasion, irrespective of where the tax was evaded. It was reported that a significant HMRC investigation involving more than 100 investigators had led to the prosecution of Bennett Verby under Section 45 of the CFA. The charge relates to alleged tax fraud involv - ing research and development (R&D) tax credits and bounce-back loans, introduced by the UK govern - ment to support businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The combined value of the alleged fraud is around GBP16 million. Following a brief hearing at Manchester Crown Court, a provisional trial date was set for September 2027. Six individuals, who also appeared in court alongside representatives from Bennett Verby, were charged
with criminal offences including cheating the public revenue and money laundering. No pleas have yet been entered by any of the defend - ants. However, recent media reports quote Bennett Verby as publicly denying the charges: “The business faces a single technical regulatory offence connected to its monitoring procedures; this is not part of the principal case before the court. We can confirm that the matter is denied and will be vigorously defended.” Despite the CFA offences having been in force for eight years, there have not been any previous deci - sions to prosecute. As of 31 December 2024, accord - ing to information published by HMRC, 114 “oppor - tunities” had already been reviewed and dismissed, while 11 live investigations were under way and 28 “live opportunities” were still under review. Prior to the charges brought in August 2025, MPs had criticised HMRC’s apparent reluctance to bring charges against companies that facilitate tax eva - sion . Margaret Hodge MP, formerly Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said that the lack of enforce - ment had rendered the CFA “a paper tiger”. Following the charges in the Bennett Verby case, has that tiger finally roared? Businesses commit a criminal offence under the CFA if they fail to prevent an associated person (an employ - ee, agent or third party) from facilitating tax evasion by a third party. As strict liability offences, which cover both domestic and overseas tax evasion, it is not nec - essary to prove that senior management knew that evasion took place. If a business has facilitated tax evasion, the only viable defence to CFA offences is having “reasonable” preventative procedures in place. For UK tax evasion, it is not relevant where the corpo - rate entity is based or where the conduct of the parties has taken place. Although more complex, non-UK tax evasion rules generally necessitate a connection to the UK. If convicted, a business can face unlimited fines, reputational damage and, potentially, loss of regulatory approval. The prosecution of Bennett Verby serves as a timely reminder that HMRC intends to progress suitable
301 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook