{"id":36241,"date":"2025-04-01T15:43:13","date_gmt":"2025-04-01T15:43:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/\/"},"modified":"2025-04-04T13:27:59","modified_gmt":"2025-04-04T13:27:59","slug":"england-and-wales","status":"publish","type":"product","link":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/","title":{"rendered":"England & Wales"},"content":{"rendered":"

I\u00a0 Executive summary<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Fraud remains the most common crime in the UK.\u00a0 Generative AI and cryptoassets are now inextricably entangled in modern society and economy, which has opened up a feeding ground for fraudsters.\u00a0 Everyday activities, such as buying and selling online, are fraught with cybersecurity risks, leaving even the most tech-literate amongst us susceptible to AI-perfected scams.<\/p>\n

The legal framework underpinning fraud, asset tracing and recovery in England & Wales has proven adaptable in the face of these challenges.\u00a0 The common law has applied traditional tools to new scenarios, while legislation has sought to keep pace with technological advancements.\u00a0 This chapter highlights the difficulties faced by victims of fraud, and analyses the many ways in which English law has risen to meet them.<\/p>\n

II\u00a0 Legal framework and statutory underpinnings<\/strong><\/h2>\n

\u201cLaws and principles are not for the time when there is no temptation; they are for such moments as this, when the body and the soul rise in mutiny against their rigor; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Jane Eyre \u2013 Charlotte Bront\u00eb.<\/p>\n

In this passage, Jane is referring to an internal law, that which guides her to reject the yet-married Mr Rochester\u2019s advances.\u00a0 While in that moment, Jane is in great turmoil, she holds to \u201cthe principles received by me when I was sane<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 We are now in a time of great temptation. The advent of AI has given renewed vigour to fraudsters, who lurk behind thick layers of sophisticated technology and grasp from the shadows at what assets they can.\u00a0 Is the law apt to quell this temptation?\u00a0 Is it rigorous, stringent, inviolate?<\/p>\n

In England & Wales, the law has consistently risen to the challenge.\u00a0 Two familiar common law tools \u2013 freezing orders and search orders \u2013 remain essential for the purposes of preventing the dissipation of assets and concealment of evidence.\u00a0 The cross-border reach of the English regime has remained reliable, with courts willing to grant anti-suit injunctions restraining a party from commencing or continuing foreign proceedings in breach of an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement.<\/p>\n

Legislative developments have also contributed to the efficacy of the English framework.\u00a0 The offence of failure to prevent fraud under section 199 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2003 will come into force on 1 September 2025.\u00a0 Under section 199, large organisations are guilty of an offence if an employee, agent or subsidiary commits fraud intending to benefit the organisation.\u00a0 According to guidance published by the Home Office, liability is contingent on one of the acts forming part of the fraud taking place in the UK.\u00a0 However, an organisation based overseas can be prosecuted if a UK-based associate commits fraud, or targets victims in the UK.<\/p>\n

Another key piece of legislation is the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.\u00a0 Section 243 of the Act enables enforcement authorities, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, to bring proceedings to recover property obtained through unlawful conduct.\u00a0 The ambit of the Act is wide; section 241 specifies that \u201cunlawful conduct<\/em>\u201d extends to conduct that occurs outside of the UK.\u00a0 Under section 357, a person with information relevant to a recovery investigation may be required to provide information, answer questions or produce documents.<\/p>\n

The Criminal Finances Act 2017 inserted \u201cunexplained wealth orders<\/em>\u201d into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which were later amended and clarified by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022.\u00a0 Unexplained wealth orders require the respondent to provide information as to property, such as how they obtained it and the extent of their interest in it.\u00a0 Respondents coming within the remit of such orders include those who have been involved in serious crime in the UK or elsewhere, and hold property worth over \u00a350,000 which was obtained through unlawful conduct.<\/p>\n

It is therefore clear that the English framework is expansive, deterring misconduct at the outset and providing effective measures to victims to pursue fraudsters.\u00a0 The practical aspects of this pursuit are considered in the next section.<\/p>\n

III\u00a0 Case triage<\/strong><\/h2>\n

There are three stages to fraud, asset tracing and recovery proceedings:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Preliminary assessment and evidence gathering.<\/li>\n
  2. Securing the assets.<\/li>\n
  3. Enforcement and confiscation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    1. Preliminary assessment and evidence gathering<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    At the initial stage, relevant information must be gathered.\u00a0 The key source of public information is Companies House, a database of all UK-registered companies.\u00a0 The database contains details concerning shareholders, directors, persons with significant control, registered charges and company accounts.\u00a0 Section 3 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 introduced the Register of Overseas Entities.\u00a0 Overseas entities who wish to buy, sell or transfer property or land in the UK must register with Companies House and disclose who their registrable beneficial owners or managing officers are.<\/p>\n

    Where insufficient information is publicly available, financial analysts or forensic accountants are sometimes employed to examine company reports and accounts.\u00a0 It may also be necessary to seek disclosure from third parties in order to complete the information-gathering exercise.\u00a0 This can be achieved, in part, through a Norwich Pharmacal <\/em>order.\u00a0 Under the Norwich Pharmacal <\/em>jurisdiction, a person who has become mixed up in the wrongdoing of another so as to facilitate it must provide information which enables the ultimate wrongdoer to be pursued.\u00a0 The order may be sought for the purposes of obtaining disclosure of the identity of a person, or for the disclosure of documents and other information.\u00a0 Under rule 31.18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the order can be made before proceedings have started.<\/p>\n

    Claimants should be aware that there is a distinction between common law and equitable tracing.\u00a0 The latter is considered more effective owing to the relief it makes available, and the fact that it allows tracing through a mixed fund.\u00a0 In addition, where a claimant seeks to trace property belonging in equity to him, the court may grant not only a freezing order, but further orders aimed at making that remedy effective.\u00a0 Thus, in A v. C <\/em>[1980] 2 All ER 347, a bank which was neither a party to the proceedings nor accused of malpractice was ordered to disclose the sum standing in the account of the allegedly fraudulent defendant.<\/p>\n

    The equitable jurisdiction exercised by the court in A v. C <\/em>appears similar to the Norwich Pharmacal <\/em>jurisdiction, but is separate.\u00a0 The same can be said of the order made in Bankers Trust Company v. Shapira <\/em>[1980] 1 WLR 1274.\u00a0 That case concerned two \u201crogues<\/em>\u201d, as Lord Denning called them, who had forged cheques.\u00a0 The cheques were honoured by a bank in New York, and credited to a separate bank in London.\u00a0 Fearing that the money may have been paid over to third persons, the New York bank sought information from the London bank concerning the accounts of the rogues.\u00a0 Lord Denning said that a plaintiff who has been defrauded has a right in equity to follow the money, and if that equity is to be of any avail, \u201che must be given access to the bank\u2019s books and documents \u2013 for that is the only way of tracing the money<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 The fact that the London bank had incurred no personal liability was not a bar to that conclusion.<\/p>\n

    Another factor to be taken into account at the preliminary stage is litigation funding.\u00a0 A flurry of activity emerged around litigation funding upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal <\/em>[2023] UKSC 28.\u00a0 PACCAR <\/em>established that an agreement to pay a litigation funder a proportion of damages must comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 in order to be enforceable.\u00a0 As a result, a significant number of third-party funding agreements assumed to be valid and enforceable were called into question.<\/p>\n

    A bill aimed at reversing the effects of PACCAR <\/em>has stalled, as the new Government awaits the Civil Justice Council\u2019s review of litigation funding.\u00a0 Even with PACCAR<\/em>, third-party funding remains a viable option for claimants.\u00a0 Another option is \u201cafter-the-event insurance<\/em>\u201d, which is taken out after a dispute has arisen and protects the insured against costs liability.<\/p>\n

    A further relevant factor is that civil proceedings may be instituted in parallel with criminal proceedings on the same subject matter.\u00a0 While this is discussed in greater detail below, it will be in the best interests of recovery to consider a complementary approach.<\/p>\n

    2. Securing the assets<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Once the assets have been identified, the second stage is to secure the assets.\u00a0 As noted, the English courts have significant powers to grant pre-judgment interim relief.\u00a0 A powerful example is the worldwide freezing order (\u201cWFO\u201d), which can freeze a respondent\u2019s assets anywhere in the world.\u00a0 A WFO may be convenient where the respondent has insufficient assets within the jurisdiction to satisfy the claim against them.\u00a0 The courts have demonstrated a willingness to grant WFOs where misappropriated assets held by \u201cpersons unknown<\/em>\u201d are at high risk of dissipation.\u00a0 This has mostly occurred in cases involving cryptoassets, which are discussed further below.<\/p>\n

    Where a freezing order does not provide adequate protection, the court may appoint a receiver.\u00a0 Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that the High Court may make the appointment on such terms and conditions as the court thinks just.\u00a0 The receiver\u2019s powers will therefore depend on the circumstances of the case, but usually relate to collecting and preserving the relevant assets.<\/p>\n

    3. Enforcement and confiscation<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    A number of tools are available for enforcement and confiscation.\u00a0 Part 71 of the Civil Procedure Rules allows a judgment creditor to apply for an order requiring a judgment debtor to attend court and provide information enabling enforcement of the judgment.\u00a0 Failure to comply with such an order may result in the debtor being held in contempt of court, and punished by fine, imprisonment or confiscation of assets.<\/p>\n

    Section 1 of the Charging Orders Act 1979 allows the court to place a charge on the property of a judgment debtor.\u00a0 Under certain circumstances, the property may later be sold to satisfy the debt.\u00a0 Rule 73.3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that an application for a charging order may be made without notice.<\/p>\n

    If a third party owes money to the judgment debtor, they may under Rule 72.2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules be required to pay that debt to the judgment creditor, or so much of it as is required to satisfy the judgment debt.\u00a0 While the judgment creditor may apply for a third-party debt order without notice, the court will not make the order without first fixing a hearing to consider whether to make it.<\/p>\n

    Another method of enforcement is the writ of control, which confers powers on an enforcement agent to take control of the judgment debtor\u2019s assets and sell them for the purposes of satisfying the debt.\u00a0 In addition, a court-appointed receiver may manage income from the debtor\u2019s assets and apply it to satisfy the debt.<\/p>\n

    The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides both for confiscation orders made on foot of criminal convictions, and civil recovery orders.\u00a0 The former are contained in section 6 of the Act, under which a convicted defendant may be ordered to pay an amount equal to the benefit derived from his criminal conduct.\u00a0 The latter are provided for in section 243 which, as discussed, has the effect that an order may be sought by an enforcement authority to recover property obtained through unlawful conduct.<\/p>\n

    IV\u00a0 Parallel proceedings<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    In England & Wales, civil proceedings may be instituted in parallel with criminal proceedings on the same subject matter.\u00a0 While the courts may stay civil proceedings where there is a \u201creal risk of substantial prejudice which may lead to injustice<\/em>\u201d if the stay is not granted, this discretion is rarely exercised.<\/p>\n

    A multi-pronged attack can be rewarding.\u00a0 Claimants must, however, be aware of certain limitations, such as those relating to disclosure.\u00a0 Rule 31.22 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that a document may be used only for the purposes of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, unless there is consent, the court gives permission or the document has already been used at a public hearing.\u00a0 The Criminal Procedure Rules apply similar restrictions.<\/p>\n

    Some economic crimes can be prosecuted in the UK even if the offending behaviour took place abroad.\u00a0 A primary example of this is bribery.\u00a0 The Bribery Act 2010 criminalises four types of conduct: bribing another person; soliciting or accepting a bribe; bribing a foreign public official; and failure of a business to prevent bribery.\u00a0 If any act or omission which forms part of the given offence occurred outside of the UK, the Act will still come into effect if the perpetrator has a \u201cclose connection<\/em>\u201d with the UK, meaning for example that at the time of the relevant act they were a British citizen, ordinarily resident in the UK or a body incorporated in the UK.<\/p>\n

    A difficulty inherent in parallel proceedings is that there may be a lack of resources, or institutional will, to pursue public prosecutions.\u00a0 The National Economic Crime Centre reports that fraud remains the most common crime in the UK.\u00a0 Indeed, the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau indicated that in November 2024, there were just under 31,000 reports of fraud or cybercrime.\u00a0 While a crackdown led by the City of London Police across February and March 2024 saw an uptick in arrests relating to fraud, figures published in previous years by Action Fraud UK saw low correlation between reports and judicial outcomes.\u00a0 This may in part result from a lack of specialist fraud police officers.<\/p>\n

    It is perhaps in light of this that there has been an increase in the use of private prosecutions.\u00a0 The increase has been noted by the courts themselves, particularly in complex fraud cases where, as the Court of Appeal in D v. A <\/em>[2017] EWCA Crim 1172 said, \u201cthe public authorities sometimes may lack the resources and\/or inclination to commence a public prosecution<\/em>\u201d.\u00a0 Private prosecutions are enabled by section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which also provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions can take over the proceedings at any stage.<\/p>\n

    Private prosecutions may be convenient where there are limitation issues or difficulties establishing jurisdiction in the civil claim.\u00a0 That being said, one must take care not to employ a private prosecution merely as leverage in the civil claim.\u00a0 This could lead to the criminal proceedings being stayed as an abuse of process, and to an unfavourable costs order.\u00a0 The unpredictability of costs is something which must be taken into account, particularly considering the significant risk of delay in criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

    In R v. Zinga <\/em>[2014] EWCA Crim 52, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a private prosecutor is entitled to initiate confiscation proceedings under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2022.\u00a0 While a private prosecutor may obtain information relevant to confiscation proceedings through witnesses summonses and disclosure orders, they have lesser powers than public prosecutors, who reserve the power to apply for search warrants.<\/p>\n

    The Criminal Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules, which came into force in 2022, amended the Criminal Procedure Rules to include certain requirements relevant to private prosecutions.\u00a0 Rule 7.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules now, for example, contains a list of criteria for refusing to issue a summons, including that the prosecutor has failed to disclose all material information, or reached a binding agreement with the defendant not to prosecute.<\/p>\n

    V\u00a0 Key challenges<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    A number of challenges arise when investigating fraud and tracing assets.\u00a0 Awareness of the activities of the defendant will prove necessary where there is a high risk of asset dissipation, which may in turn necessitate an urgent application for interim relief.\u00a0 The international nature of fraud cases ties into this.\u00a0 Fraud perpetrated across borders, over the internet, makes it potentially difficult to ascertain the identity of the wrongdoer.\u00a0 Attempts to enforce English judgments abroad may also throw up some complexity in the post-Brexit landscape, which is discussed further below.<\/p>\n

    All of the above may add delay to proceedings that are already lengthy in nature, which will in turn contribute to costs.<\/p>\n

    VI\u00a0 Cross-jurisdictional mechanisms<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    The position on the cross-border enforcement of English judgments has changed post-Brexit.\u00a0 The Recast Brussels Regulation 1215\/2012, which facilitated recognition and enforcement of judgments between EU Member States, no longer applies in the UK (save as to matters commenced between 10 January 2015 and 31 January 2020).<\/p>\n

    The 2007 Lugano Convention governs issues of jurisdiction and enforcement between the EU Member States and the European Free Trade Association countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).\u00a0 In 2021, the European Commission released a communication indicating that the EU should not consent to the UK\u2019s application to accede to the Lugano Convention.\u00a0 The application therefore remains in limbo, and it is not clear when it may be reconsidered.<\/p>\n

    The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements entered into force in the UK on 1 January 2021.\u00a0 The Convention, which is in force in all EU Member States and a number of other countries, provides for the enforcement of choice of court agreements made between parties to commercial contracts.\u00a0 Judgments made by the court designated under the agreement are recognised and enforced across the other contracting states.<\/p>\n

    A limitation of the 2005 Convention is that it does not contain rules for allocating jurisdiction in the absence of choice of court agreements.\u00a0 It is significant, then, that the UK has ratified the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.\u00a0 The 2019 Convention, which will enter into force in the UK on 1 July 2025, requires judgment given in one contracting state to be recognised and enforced in another, as long as any one of the requirements contained in Article 5 are met.\u00a0 Amongst them is a requirement that the judgment ruled on a contractual obligation and was given in the state where performance of the obligation either took place or should have taken place.<\/p>\n

    The increasingly cross-border nature of fraud necessitates international cooperation beyond the recognition and enforcement of judgments.\u00a0 The Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 provides for mutual legal assistance (\u201cMLA\u201d) in criminal matters between the UK and other countries.\u00a0 The powers under the Act include the power to request assistance in obtaining evidence outside the UK, and for the Secretary of State to facilitate requests by another country for information about banking transactions in England.<\/p>\n

    Although a treaty is not a precondition to mutual legal assistance, the UK is party to a number of bilateral treaties which agree particular rules and procedures for MLA.\u00a0 A number of bodies also facilitate MLA, including the UK International Crime Bureau, which serves as the UK\u2019s focal point for cooperation with agencies such as Interpol and Europol.<\/p>\n

    VII\u00a0 Using technology to aid asset recovery<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    Analysing volumes of documents generated in a fraud claim can be time-consuming and expensive.\u00a0 Even a limitation issue arising at the outset may warrant the review of a substantial amount of information.\u00a0 Not all of that information may be relevant, which is a difficulty in itself.\u00a0 Owing to the rapid pace at which AI technology is developing, this could change in the near future.\u00a0 Legal services providers are investing in the development of AI systems capable of condensing complex information.\u00a0 This will allow regulators and practitioners to keep pace with fraudsters, and improve the ability of banks to identify and block suspicious transfers.<\/p>\n

    Other forms of technology have proven useful to claimants in fraud cases.\u00a0 In D\u2019Aloia v. Persons Unknown<\/em> [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch), the High Court determined that service could be effected by email and non-fungible token (\u201cNFT\u201d).\u00a0 In Osbourne v. Persons Unknown<\/em> [2023] EWHC 39 (KB), the High Court for the first time approved service by NFT as the sole method of service of documents.<\/p>\n

    VIII\u00a0 Digital currencies<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (\u201cUKJT\u201d) provides guidance at the cross-section of law and technology.\u00a0 In its statement of November 2019, the UKJT concluded that cryptoassets have all the indicia of property, and are therefore to be treated in principle as property.\u00a0 Building on this, the UKJT in 2024 concluded that for the purposes of the law on insolvency, a claim to digital assets held by a company or bankrupt individual could in principle be a claim to recover property.<\/p>\n

    Relevantly, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill has been introduced and is making its way through the early stages of Parliament.\u00a0 Section 1 of the Bill provides that \u201ca thing<\/em>\u201d which is digital or electronic in nature is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it does not fall into the two categories of personal property traditionally recognised in English law.\u00a0 The first category relates to things \u201cin possession<\/em>\u201d, which are tangible things.\u00a0 The second category relates to things \u201cin action<\/em>\u201d, meaning personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by a court action, such as debts.<\/p>\n

    The Bill recognises that digital assets do not fit neatly into either of the traditional categories.\u00a0 They are not, evidently, tangible, and unlike \u201cthings in action<\/em>\u201d, they do not depend for their existence on recognition by the law.\u00a0 It could be said that there is also a commercial necessity to the Bill.\u00a0 Digital assets are becoming inextricably entangled in commerce, and the law should not allow itself to be outpaced.<\/p>\n

    As an example of the law attempting to keep up, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 amended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to insert provisions relating to cryptoassets.\u00a0 Amongst them is Section 303Z29, which provides that an enforcement officer may seize cryptoassets if the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the cryptoassets were obtained through unlawful conduct, or intended for use in unlawful conduct.<\/p>\n

    The Financial Conduct Authority has published a Crypto Roadmap setting out high-level proposals for the regulation of cryptoassets.\u00a0 The roadmap sets out a series of consultations on various topics, including financial crime.\u00a0 As the new regulatory regime is not expected to be in place until 2026, it is perhaps best that some of the relevant principles have been left to the common law to develop.<\/p>\n

    For example, in D\u2019Aloia v. Persons Unknown<\/em> [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch), the claimant alleged that unidentified persons had induced him to hand over cryptocurrency, which was then passed through a number of blockchain wallets before being withdrawn as fiat currency by a separate group of unidentified persons.\u00a0 The sixth defendant was one of the cryptoexchanges with whom the unidentified fraudsters were said to have held accounts.\u00a0 The claimant sought to recover the cryptocurrency from the sixth defendant by way, amongst other things, of tracing.<\/p>\n

    While the claimant failed on the facts, Farnhill J determined a number of salient issues. Firstly, the relevant cryptocurrency \u2013 Tether \u2013 attracted property rights under English law as a distinct form of property not premised on an underlying legal right.\u00a0 It could therefore be the subject of tracing, and could constitute trust property.\u00a0 Furthermore, Tether was best characterised as a \u201cpersistent thing<\/em>\u201d, meaning that on transfer, it was not destroyed and created anew, but remained a notional quantity unit that could be tracked.\u00a0 This supported the idea that it could in principle be both followed and traced.<\/p>\n

    The court has shown on a number of occasions that it is willing to employ its conventional powers to assist claimants who are the victim of cryptoasset fraud.\u00a0 In Mooij v. Persons Unknown & ors <\/em>[2024] EWHC 814 (Comm), for example, the court found that as jurisdiction had been established by alternative service, there was no reason why summary judgment could not be obtained against \u201cpersons unknown<\/em>\u201d defendants who had not chosen to identify themselves.\u00a0 The court also determined that it was not necessary to qualify the test for granting a freezing injunction at the merits stage with a requirement that the identity of persons unknown be established by the time judgment is granted.<\/p>\n

    IX\u00a0 Recent developments and other impacting factors<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    Expansion of Serious Fraud Office powers<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (\u201cCJA\u201d), the Serious Fraud Office may issue what is called a \u201csection 2 notice<\/em>\u201d compelling a person under investigation to answer questions, furnish information or produce documents relevant to the investigation.\u00a0 Failure to comply with the obligation without reasonable excuse may result in criminal liability.\u00a0 Section 2A of the CJA makes the powers contained in section 2 available at the pre-investigation stage.<\/p>\n

    Previously, section 2A operated solely in relation to bribery or corruption which occurred outside of the UK.\u00a0 An amendment introduced by section 211 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 expands the application of section 2A to all Serious Fraud Office cases, bringing fraud and domestic bribery within its remit.\u00a0 This is a significant expansion of the Serious Fraud Office\u2019s powers, and should contribute to the efficacy of its investigations in future.<\/p>\n

    Corporate liability<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Another change introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 relates to the identification doctrine, under which companies are normally only criminally liable where the commission of the offence can be attributed to someone who was the \u201cdirecting mind and will<\/em>\u201d of the company.<\/p>\n

    A relaxation of the doctrine has come in the form of section 196 of the 2023 Act, which provides that if a senior manager of a corporate entity, acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority, commits a \u201crelevant offence<\/em>\u201d, the organisation is also guilty of the offence.\u00a0 \u201cFraud<\/em>\u201d and \u201cconspiracy to defraud<\/em>\u201d are counted amongst the \u201crelevant offences<\/em>\u201d for the purposes of section 196.<\/p>\n

    Private prosecutions<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Private prosecutions drew criticism in the wake of the Post Office scandal.\u00a0 The former Chair of the Bar Council, Sam Townend KC, commented that those who bring private prosecutions almost inevitably have a vested interest, whereas the Crown Prosecution Service was originally created to remove the decision on whether to prosecute serious crimes from those investigating.<\/p>\n

    While the Private Prosecutors Association has published a Code of Conduct, the Code is optional.\u00a0 It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that the Government has expressed an intention to begin a consultation on private prosecutions, citing a lack of checks and balances that are otherwise required of the police or Crown Prosecution Service.<\/p>\n

    The long-term efficacy of the developments discussed in this section remain to be seen.\u00a0 It is evident, however, that the law in England & Wales is attempting to adapt to the rapidly changing fraud landscape.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I\u00a0 Executive summary Fraud remains the most common crime in the UK.\u00a0 Generative AI and cryptoassets are now inextricably entangled in modern society and economy, which has opened up a feeding ground for fraudsters.\u00a0 Everyday activities, such as buying and selling online, are fraught with cybersecurity risks, leaving even the most tech-literate amongst us susceptible […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":36179,"template":"","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false},"product_brand":[],"product_cat":[3223],"product_tag":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-36241","1":"product","2":"type-product","3":"status-publish","5":"product_cat-fraud-asset-tracing-and-recovery","7":"first","8":"instock","9":"downloadable","10":"virtual","11":"taxable","12":"purchasable","13":"product-type-simple"},"yoast_head":"\nFraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery 2025 | England & Wales<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This article explores fraud in England & Wales, discussing legal frameworks, case stages, cross-jurisdictional mechanisms, key challenges and more.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery 2025 | England & Wales\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This article explores fraud in England & Wales, discussing legal frameworks, case stages, cross-jurisdictional mechanisms, key challenges and more.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"CDR News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-04-04T13:27:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/England-Wales.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/bA0IJViws0mVyETjfStT4Qu5EEVqHwCuhJrB89Bg.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@CDR_Magazine\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/\",\"name\":\"Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery 2025 | England & Wales\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-04-01T15:43:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-04-04T13:27:59+00:00\",\"description\":\"This article explores fraud in England & Wales, discussing legal frameworks, case stages, cross-jurisdictional mechanisms, key challenges and more.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shop\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/shop\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery 2025\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"England & Wales\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/\",\"name\":\"CDR News\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CDR News\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/cdr_logo_header-1.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/cdr_logo_header-1.svg\",\"caption\":\"CDR News\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/CDR_Magazine\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery 2025 | England & Wales","description":"This article explores fraud in England & Wales, discussing legal frameworks, case stages, cross-jurisdictional mechanisms, key challenges and more.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery 2025 | England & Wales","og_description":"This article explores fraud in England & Wales, discussing legal frameworks, case stages, cross-jurisdictional mechanisms, key challenges and more.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/","og_site_name":"CDR News","article_modified_time":"2025-04-04T13:27:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":1200,"url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/England-Wales.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_image":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/bA0IJViws0mVyETjfStT4Qu5EEVqHwCuhJrB89Bg.png","twitter_site":"@CDR_Magazine","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/","name":"Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery 2025 | England & Wales","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-04-01T15:43:13+00:00","dateModified":"2025-04-04T13:27:59+00:00","description":"This article explores fraud in England & Wales, discussing legal frameworks, case stages, cross-jurisdictional mechanisms, key challenges and more.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/england-and-wales\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shop","item":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/shop\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery 2025","item":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/cdr-essential-intelligence\/fraud-asset-tracing-recovery\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"England & Wales"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/","name":"CDR News","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization","name":"CDR News","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/cdr_logo_header-1.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/cdr_logo_header-1.svg","caption":"CDR News"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/CDR_Magazine"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product\/36241","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/product"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product\/36179"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"product_brand","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product_brand?post=36241"},{"taxonomy":"product_cat","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product_cat?post=36241"},{"taxonomy":"product_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/product_tag?post=36241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}