Global | Publikation | Oktober 2025
Shifting geopolitical dynamics have seen a wave of changes across the international investigations and enforcement landscape. In this edition, we focus on some of the most significant of these changes – from the issue of new cooperation guidelines by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to the abandonment by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) of its proposal to “name and shame” those it is investigating.
In parallel with these developments, we have seen increased enforcement activity from a number of different authorities such as the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), which we expect to continue. In addition to this increased enforcement, in the coming months we expect to see:
The new UK failure to prevent fraud (FTPF) offence came into force on 1 September 2025. The offence applies to organisations wherever they are located (including outside the UK) and so organisations will need to ensure that they have considered the applicability of the offence to their business on a global scale. The only defence to the FTPF offence is having in place “reasonable procedures” to prevent the relevant fraud offence. The SFO have been clear that there will be no easing in period and that it will be seeking to prosecute organisations for the offence as it has done successfully in relation to the Bribery Act 2010, under which regime the SFO has imposed almost £2 billion in penalties. The Director of the SFO recently commented that "Come September, if they haven’t sorted themselves out, we’re coming after them… I’m very, very keen to prosecute someone for that offence. We can’t sit with the statute books gathering dust, someone needs to feel the bite".
Organisations within scope need to be able to demonstrate that they have conducted a risk assessment tailored to this offence and considered their fraud policies and procedures in light of the risks identified. For more information on the short term and long term steps companies can take, please see our recent article here and a more detailed article here.
In August 2025, HMRC brought its first corporate prosecution under the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA), charging Bennett Verby Ltd, a UK-based accountancy firm for allegedly failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion – nearly eight years after the legislation came into force. The charges follow a multi-year investigation and are believed to relate to allegedly fraudulent claims linked to research and development tax credits and pandemic-related loan schemes.
The CFA introduced two offences targeting corporate failure to prevent tax evasion facilitation which apply to companies, partnerships and other bodies corporate: one for UK tax and one for foreign tax with a UK connection. The offences impose strict liability where an associated person – which includes employees, agents and contractors – commits an offence by facilitating tax evasion. Liability does not depend on the knowledge or intent of senior management.
The Bennett Verby prosecution marks a significant shift in HMRC’s approach to corporate enforcement. Following criticism for its reluctance to prosecute under the CFA and the offence being labelled a “paper tiger” by parliamentarians, HMRC has now demonstrated its willingness to pursue charges against businesses that fail to prevent tax evasion. Businesses can no longer assume the legislation is dormant and enforcement activity is expected to increase. The decision to prosecute a mid-sized accountancy firm, rather than a large multinational, may reflect a strategic choice to establish legal precedent in a more contained case before moving on to larger, more complex targets.
On 11 September 2025, HMRC also published details of the number of live corporate criminal offences (CCOs) under investigation as of 30 June 2025. HMRC confirmed it had 11 live CCO investigations (remaining the same as the number reported in December 2024) and a further 27 ‘live opportunities’ under review; whilst 121 opportunities had been reviewed and rejected to date. The cases span 13 different business sectors, including legal services, accountancy and software providers.
These developments, together with the new UK FPTF offence signal a clear policy direction: authorities are moving toward stricter corporate accountability across multiple areas of economic crime.
To mount a successful defence under the CFA, organisations must be able to demonstrate that they had reasonable procedures in place. These must be proportionate to the risks faced, regularly reviewed, and properly documented. Generic or outdated policies are unlikely to be sufficient. Firms should ensure that their procedures are embedded in day-to-day operations, supported by training, oversight, and clear escalation routes. Given the new UK FTPF offence (which also covers offences of cheating the revenue) now is a good time to look at financial crime compliance procedures as a whole to ensure they are effective.
In August 2025, the SFO (jointly with the Crown Prosecution Service) issued its updated corporate prosecution guidance for prosecutors and investigators; this follows from the issuing of the updated guidance for corporates issued in April 2025 of this year, which we have covered here.
The guidance sets out points that prosecutors and investigators should bear in mind when evidencing the various ‘failure to prevent’ offences.
Key points arising from the guidance include:
On 9 September, the SFO announced that it had used its first Unexplained Wealth Order (obtained in January 2025) to secure £1.1 million from the sale of a house belonging to the ex-wife of a convicted fraudster. The SFO have made it clear that they will continue to use enforcement tools such as UWOs to pursue assets and support their investigations.
On 2 September 2025, the Home Office published a progress report on the Economic Crime Plan 2 (ECP2), which was published in March 2023 and set out how public and private sectors would cut economic crime, protect national security and support the UK’s economic growth. The report demonstrates a shift towards data-led assessment of financial crime prevention and provides a summary of: (i) key insights from the priority outcomes and indicators being monitored as part of the ECP2 outcomes framework; and (ii) progress in developing new data to address limitations and improve the ability to comprehensively measure performance.
Some key insights include:
Whilst data suggests there are positive indications of trends in how the system is performing, significant data gaps remain and further development is required to more directly measure outcomes. There are several examples of work underway to do this – for more information on this and the report more broadly, please see our recent article here.
The Home Office is planning on publishing an update to its report in the financial year ending 2027.
In June 2025, the FCA published an updated version of its Enforcement Guide (now to be known under the new acronym ENFG), which is now in force. It implemented the bulk of its proposed changes to streamline its enforcement guidance, although there were some areas where it decided not to take proposals forward or clarified the drafting which had been proposed in the consultation.
Notably, following significant industry feedback, the FCA dropped its original proposal to adopt a public interest test for publishing announcements naming firms when opening an enforcement investigation. Instead, the FCA has retained the "exceptional circumstances" test for announcing an investigation that was previously in place but has added three additional instances where announcements could be made. These will enable the FCA, in limited circumstances, to: (i) announce and name the subjects of investigations into suspected unauthorised activity or criminal offences related to unregulated activity; (ii) reactively confirm that it is investigating in specific circumstances; and (iii) share information on an anonymised basis.
Other key points from ENFG include confirmation of the FCA’s approach in connection with legal advisers at compelled interviews, sharing of privileged material and future consultation on the ENFG. Further details on these aspects of ENFG can be found in our briefing here.
We expect geopolitical volatility to continue to influence enforcement activity internationally: while many countries are easing their sanctions on Syria, there is an international ramp-up of sanctions on Iran. The UK and the EU have also remained clear that relevant authorities do not intend to relax their enforcement and investigations activity insofar as Russia is concerned.
Meanwhile in the US, the Trump Administration left the future of the FCPA slightly unclear following budget cuts to the DOJ’s FCPA team in February, although it was clarified in June that anti-corruption enforcement would still very much be on the agenda for the DOJ where this would 'safeguard fair opportunities for US companies'. For more information see this article by our US team here.
The SFO has stated that it considers it is "business as usual" following the June 2025 FCPA announcement and was emphatic following a meeting with the DOJ in the summer noting that they were "strengthening their important partnership in tackling financial crime". As well as (continued) collaboration with the US, we expect to see an increase in cooperation with other authorities by the SFO, following the formation of the new International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce together with the Swiss Attorney General’s Office and the French Parquet National Financier (PNF). The SFO are clearly actively seeking new cases and considers that international partnerships will be key in that strategy.
More in-depth views on this development are discussed on our podcast episode in which we cover the future of anti-bribery enforcement and collaboration between the US and the UK here.
In November 2024, the SRA published a series of guidance notes for in-house solicitors, recognising the growth and importance of the in-house role and the unique pressures to which in-house solicitors can be subject. The guidance covers six topics and whilst it does not introduce any new standards or requirements, it aims to explain how the existing framework applies in particular in-house scenarios. The six topics covered are: identifying your client, reporting concerns about wrongdoing, internal investigations, legal professional privilege, guidance for employers on solicitors’ professional obligations and guidance for governing boards, chief executives and senior officers in organisations employing in-house solicitors (for further information, see our webinar and our briefings here and here).
More recently, as part of its professional ethics programme, in May 2025, the Law Society launched the first iteration of its ethical practice framework for in-house solicitors. The framework offers free tools, resources and templates to help the in-house community navigate ethical challenges in the workplace and represents the Law Society’s view of good practice in this area. It is intended to be complementary to the SRA’s guidance.
In terms of enforcement, the SRA is continuing development work on wider reforms to its financial penalties framework. In May 2025, it published an interim policy statement which includes discussion of, amongst other things, the changes it is making to its fining guidance in light of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which removed the cap on the SRA’s fining powers in relation to certain breaches that involve economic crime.
We have seen the SRA continue to take action against those in the legal profession, with themes including breach of AML regulations, sexual misconduct and falsifying documents. The SRA has increased its fining activity, with fines most commonly imposed for breaches of anti-money laundering regulations. However, as of as of April 2025, unpaid fines came to more than £1m. The SRA has also reported that in 2024 a record 109 cases relating to sexual misconduct were opened, and that more complaints were made between 2023 and 2024 than in the previous four years combined. This trend has continued in 2025. As of September 2025, the SRA also has 95 high volume consumer claims cases, plus live investigations across 76 firms with potentially 200,000 plus claims between them, most commonly relating to financial products, housing disrepair and cavity wall insulation.
In Limbu v Dyson, the UK Court of Appeal found England to be the appropriate forum in a claim brought against Dyson for alleged forced labour practices of a Malaysian supplier. The Court of Appeal emphasised the primacy of the claim against Dyson UK, based on the fact that group policies were promulgated, implemented and overseen from the UK. The defendants’ application for permission to appeal against the Appeal Court decision was refused by the UK Supreme Court on 1 May 2025, and the matter will proceed to trial.
This case forms part of a growing number of claims brought against UK companies for alleged human rights harms caused by third parties in the corporate group or value chain, such as subsidiaries or suppliers. Further details can be found in our article here.
Separately, the UK government committed in its 2025 Trade Strategy to reviewing its approach to Responsible Business Conduct (RBC). This announcement followed a UK House of Lords Select Committee report which found that the UK has "fallen behind" on international legislative developments in this area. The UK Joint Committee on Human Rights has since published a report calling on the government to adopt mandatory human rights due diligence legislation and a forced labour import ban. See our briefing on these developments here.
Sanctions continue to be imposed at pace across the UK, EU and the US.
In mid-October the UK, EU, and US imposed restrictions on Rosneft and Lukoil (and by extension Litasco). Activity to wind down relationships with these entities and their subsidiaries as well as exemptions for certain strategic projects have been put in place. We anticipate that these two designations will have a significant impact, both on the market and those required to comply (particularly traders who are UK/EU/US persons operating in the Middle East/Asia). It has been reported that Lukoil may already be considering the sale of its assets outside of Russia.
In October the EU adopted its 19th package of sanctions, which swiftly followed its 18th package adopted in July. The standout measures from both packages are:
The UK is similarly focused on targeting sanctions circumvention in the energy and decentralised finance sectors: in August it imposed sanctions on entities enabling the “shadow fleet” of vessels carrying Russian oil and on crypto networks exploited by Russia. This follows the issue in July of joint FCDO-OFSI red alert on the shadow fleet sanctions evasion and avoidance network and an OFSI threat assessment of cryptoassets. In October the UK also announced a prohibition on imports into the UK of oil products refined in third countries from Russian-origin crude oil, but the details of this measure are yet to be finalised.
While the expansion of sanctions to Rosneft and Lukoil, prohibitions on refined products derived from Russian origin crude oil and the EU matching the UK’s restrictions on LNG indicate an element of alignment between the UK, EU, and US, there are still elements of inconsistency. For example, (i) in June the EU and the UK reduced the price cap on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $47.60, but not the US, and (ii) there remains significant divergence between the UK, EU, and US in sanctioning vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet.
Russia is not the sole focus in the sanctions context: on 25 September, the US’s Office of Financial Assets Control (OFAC) designated arms trafficking networks and financial facilitators for North Korean weapons programmes and on 22 October, the UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) imposed further sanctions using its programme targeting global irregular migration and people trafficking.
Turning to Iran, in August OFAC imposed sanctions on Antonio Margaritis, his network of shipping companies and a number of vessels for the illicit transportation and sale of Iranian oil. The EU and the UK have similarly increased focus on Iran, this week imposing a “snap-back” of harsher sanctions regulations.
Enforcement remains a focus across the UK, EU and the US. In the UK, OFSI and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) have both taken recent enforcement action, details of which are set out here. Since that update OFSI has issued one further enforcement action of note:
OFAC have published details of a number of settlements this month, including:
Publikation
Der Bundestag hat im Oktober das Wohnungsbau-Beschleunigungsgesetz (sog. „Bau-Turbo“ – BT-Drs. 21/781) verabschiedet. Ziel des Gesetzes ist es, den Wohnungsbau in Deutschland zu beschleunigen, bürokratische Verfahren zu vereinfachen und die Schaffung dringend benötigten Wohnraums zu fördern.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025
