Serious about Fraud?
| Author | David Kirk |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2011.75.4.708 |
| Published date | 01 August 2011 |
| Date | 01 August 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Opinion |
OPINION
Serious About Fraud?
David Kirk*
Chief Criminal Counsel, Financial Services Authority
In April 2010 the Conservatives signalled an intention to create an
Economic Crime Agency (ECA) to replace all the existing arrangements
for fighting serious fraud. Just over a year later, the plans for the new
agency are beginning to emerge, and a major change is in prospect.
The main argument originally advanced in support of the creation of
an ECA was that it would gather under one roof all the ‘alphabet soup’
of authorities which currently operate in the area of corporate fraud and
economic crime. In pursuit of a general policy of ‘decluttering the
landscape’ it was argued that fraud investigation and prosecution was an
area where a single authority would improve the quality of fraud
outcomes, lead to consistency and avoid the problem of ‘orphan’ cases.
Subsidiary, and important, issues related to constitutional questions of
some complexity, for example, about separating investigation from pro-
secution, oversight by the Attorney-General and use of powers.
A Research Note published in March 2010 by the right-wing think
tank Policy Exchange1stated that:
the present arrangements for fighting serious fraud, corruption and finan-
cial market crimes are lamentably deficient. The haphazard development of
the Government agencies tasked with tackling these crimes has created a
system of overlapping responsibilities for investigation and prosecution, a
dispersion of powers and caused an unnecessary duplication of manpower
and specialist resources.
The independent lobby group the Fraud Advisory Panel also went into
print in March 20102advocating a single agency, claiming that there
would be some, albeit insignificant, savings, and ‘long-term improve-
ments in case management procedures and fraud conviction rates which
might arise from a coherent prosecution policy, a broader skill base and
improved cooperation and disclosure or sharing of information’.
The government’s original thinking on the subject seems to have been
tempered over the last year by a mix of practicalities and politics. An
obvious lack of enthusiasm to inject any new cash into the project has
not assisted. Then the Treasury announced in October 2010 that, con-
trary to most expectations, the criminal investigation and prosecution
* The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Financial Services Authority or the Journal of Criminal Law.
1 Jonathan Fisher QC, ‘Fighting Fraud and Financial Crime’, 11 March 20, available at
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id= 177, accessed 2 June
2011.
2 Fraud Advisory Panel, ‘Roskill Revisited: Is There a Case for a Unified Fraud
Prosecution Office?’, March 2010, available at http://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/new/
pdf_show.php?id= 124&PHPSESSID = 4a52a94920e121c09ea35bb6504c9c0a, accessed 2
June 2011.
249The Journal of Criminal Law (2011) 75 JCL 249–252
doi:10.1350/jcla.2011.75.4.708
To continue reading
Request your trial