Print Article

UK Peers Vote to Include F.T.P Money Laundering & Remove S.M.E. Exemption.


Members of the U.K.'s House of Lords have tabled proposals to widen a new offence that will make companies criminally liable for failing to prevent fraud by their employees to

  • Include money laundering, and
  • Remove an exemption from the legislation for small to medium-sized companies [S.M.E.s]

In a vote late Tuesday, members of Parliament's upper chamber [Peers]

  • Voted 179 to 176 in favour of altering an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to remove the exemption for companies that are not "large organizations" from the failure to prevent regime.
  • Voted 176 to 160 in favour of inserting a new clause for companies that fail to prevent fraud and money laundering,

Lawmakers will vote on the legislation later this year.

Labor MP Margaret Hodge tweeted that the amendments were an

  • "Incredible success. … If [government] upholds these, it will revolutionize our approach to corporate crime and give law enforcement the confidence to take on deep-pocketed criminals," she tweeted.


In a significant intervention, the House of Lords put through two amendments tabled by Edward Garnier KC, a Conservative peer and former solicitor general.

Garnier said during the debate

  • It would be "absurd" to limit the offense to large organizations, which by the government's definition, covers 0.5% of the corporate and partnership economy.
  • That is the equivalent of us saying that every burglar over 6ft 6in is liable to be prosecuted … but every burglar under 6ft 6in gets off scot-free.
  • If that is what the criminal law should be … well, that is strange

Garnier also argued that

  • Extending the offence to include money laundering was "a very modest increase to the ambit" of the "failure to prevent" regime.
  • He added that existing money laundering regulations failed to address Proceeds of Crime Act offences committed by company employees.


  1. The government in April published a draft new corporate criminal offence of failing to prevent fraud to make it easier for criminal prosecutions to be brought against companies.
  2. The proposals expand on similar offences for big companies failing to prevent bribery by their employees or agents and failing to prevent tax evasion.
  3. But critics argued the offence might not be the "game changer" heralded by prosecutors because it was limited to fraud and false accounting and contained a carve-out for S.M.E.s.
  4. The failure to prevent offence is among a series of changes to economic crime legislation designed to turn the screw on companies, including plans to make it much easier to bring corporate prosecutions by allowing companies to be held liable for the actions of senior managers.
  5. The government outlined proposals in June to reform the identification doctrine, the requirement to prove that individuals who constitute the "directing mind and will" of the company knew about the wrongdoing.



The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email