London | Frankfurt | Madrid | Milan | Rome

MODERN LAWYERSFOR CHANGING TIMES 'a City firm in a non-City location' - Legal 500

NOV
18

More acquittals and successful results for Lewis Nedas Law criminal and fraud lawyers

  1. fraudUnan Choudhury represented an individual who was initially facing a large scale conspiracy to defraud prosecution. Unan successfully represented to the CPS that there was not a case for his client to answer and insufficient evidence to allow the case to go to the jury. The CPS agreed with Unan's assessment, a week before trial! They then substituted a charge of money laundering, as a small amount of the alleged proceeds of crime passed through his account. Our client agreed to plead guilty to this and was sentenced to 40 hours 'work in the community order' - his numerous co-defendants were convicted and sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment for the overarching allegation of fraud.

  2. Siobhain Egan represented a professional man accused of assaulting his children's tutor in his own home, and in front of his children. Our client, a man of good character, staunchly denied the offence, and we set about investigating and preparing his case. It was rapidly apparent that there was simply no information about the alleged victim, his apparent doctorate or qualifications anywhere! We also learned that he admitted use of class A drugs and that there had been allegations of his aggressive behaviour in the past. Rather unusually, we made an application to admit this evidence as 'bad character' against the alleged victim.The CPS were very uncooperative about this application and our persistent requests for disclosure in the case, reluctantly serving important information on the day of trial which required further investigation. Our client was represented by the excellent and tenacious barrister Rishi Nathwani, and was acquitted to his absolute delight and relief. The court made a defence costs in his favour.

  3. Siobhain also represented a City analyst investigated for fraud, as a result of strong representations made to the investigating authority, the prosecution was dropped. Had he been prosecuted he would have lost his Job and specialist professional status.

These are just some examples of the detailed, painstaking, assertive and very successful defence preparation and representation which we offer to our clients.

Continue reading
637 Hits
NOV
18

8 Out of 10 UK Managers Operating Overseas Forced to use Bribery

A 12-year study has found that over 85% of UK managers operating abroad in emerging markets are involved with bribery on a monthly basis.

The study, carried out by Henley Business School, also found that 80% of board level executives are aware of the practice, but that very little can be done to stop it. The inquiry was carried out over a 12 year period, beginning in 2004, and is based on private “intimate” conversations with the executives, ranging from general managers to chief executives, of more than 1000 businesses operating internationally, of which more than 10% were UK based.

Struggling to Combat Bribery

According to Andrew Kakabadse, professor of governance and leadership at Henley Business School, the report originally began as an exercise to help coach and support high-level business individuals struggling with aspects of their employment. “However,” he added, “it quickly became apparent that a key obstacle was dealing with everyday fraud, bribery and corruption.”

The study has drawn from research in Australia, Belgium, China, Finland, Georgia, Germany, India, Ireland, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Sweden. It also found that bribery was costing the organisations in question some 5% of their annual revenue on average.

The report noted that bribery was so institutionalised in some markets that it had been informed of instances where agents would try and ‘out-bid’ each other by asking for lower bribes – usually a percentage of the contract’s value and often up to 10% – to ensure a company would engage them over competitors.

Mr Kakabadse stated that while the stiff penalties contained in laws like the UK’s Bribery Act and the US’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act “bring fear to boards”, they have also created a class of “fall guys”.

“Many boards are following the act but know bribery is a fact of life lower down the company, the people on the ground,” he added. “It is the managing directors and general managers in country… who are being forced to give bribes to win business. These are good people being forced to do bad things. Boards are doing worse than paying lip service to anti-corruption laws because they are using them to protect themselves while they know bribery is going on.”

The study found no specific sector or area which was particularly susceptible or likely to indulge in bribery and Mr Kakabadse expressed surprise that only 85% of managers had admitted to using bribes. These findings stand in sharp contrast to PwC’s recent global economic crime survey which found that 18% of senior management was involved in crime, including accounting fraud, while 80% of senior executives admitted to having seen such corrupt practices.

Mr Kakabadse reported that many of the managers in question felt that bribery was the only option if they wished to remain competitive in these emerging markets, with the only other option being to withdraw from the market completely. In other words, “if they didn’t pay-up to achieve their organisation’s objectives, then their competitors certainly would.” Working in foreign markets naturally means adopting local practices, and when that country or market is deeply corrupt, the only alternative to corrupt business is no business. It is therefore somewhat unsurprising that many companies have chosen to turn a blind eye, giving tacit permission to their subordinates. Commenting on the report, Michael Littlechild, director of GoodCorporation, the anti-corruption and business ethics advisor, observed that it starkly illuminates the difficulties faced by companies operating in emerging markets. He added: “Many large international organisations give explicit instructions to staff to refuse bribes and some have pulled out of countries where the risk is too great (…) Those that have ignored the law have faced huge fines.”

Severe Penalties

If any of these “fall guys” or the companies who employ them are found guilty of an offence under the Bribery Act 2010 the consequences can be severe. Section 11 of the Act provides for a potentially unlimited fine and up to ten year’s imprisonment for individuals found guilty of serious bribery offences and a similarly unlimited fine for any company or partnership who fail to prevent such bribery from happening.

A criminal conviction also triggers the power to impose a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This order will almost always be applied for after a conviction unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. It is designed to prevent offenders from benefitting from the crime they have committed and forces those convicted of an offence to pay a sum of money equal to the ‘benefit’ they received as a result of the bribe.

If the defendant cannot be brought to trial, has been acquitted, or where there is insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction, a Civil Recovery Order can be applied for. Being a civil claim, the agency bringing the claim (for bribery the Serious Fraud Office) need only establish criminal activity and that the funds it is seeking to recover are the proceeds of that crime. This is a lower standard of proof than in a criminal case. There are clear advantages to using this procedure for both parties as, if they settle (which they typically do), the resulting settlement will be confidential and will not result in a criminal conviction.

It seems likely that the companies in question see the possibility of such measures as par for the course and a worthy price to pay for the opportunity of working in these emerging markets. It also seems to demonstrate an almost foolhardy faith in not getting caught, or in being able to lay the blame squarely at the door of a subordinate and walk away scot free.

Lewis Nedas Financial Crime Lawyers, London

Lewis Nedas Law are London-based solicitors, frequently rated in both Chambers UK and The Legal 500. With over 30 years’ experience as specialist solicitors in central London, UK, we can help you or your business today. on 020 7387 2032 Please contact Jeffrey Lewis or Siobhain Egan on 020 7387 2032 or contact us online.

Continue reading
645 Hits
NOV
16

John Alford interviewed by French TV Channel 6

mazer mahmoodThe actor John Alford and his solicitor Siobhain Egan were both filmed and interviewed by French TV channel 6, for their current affairs program 66 Minutes, about the activities (and conviction) of Mazer Mahmood aka 'The Fake Sheikh'.

 

Continue reading
668 Hits
NOV
15

New instructions for Lewis Nedas Law specialist criminal and fraud defence solicitors

  1. cuffsLeila Abdul-Rasool has been instructed in an insurance fraud (and related money laundering matters) to the value of £500,000;

  2. Siobhain Egan has been instructed in the following matters:

    a) two more individuals seeking to overturn their convictions sustained as a result of sting entrapments by the 'Fake Sheikh' Mazer Mahmood;
    b) a professional man facing allegations of pharmaceutical fraud;
    c) a finance professional accused of fraud;
    d) two senior finance professionals acting as NED's, facing investigation by HMRC and the FCA re regulatory and professional disciplinary issues.

  3. Miles Herman is acting for:

    a) a client facing investigation into money laundering to the value of £1.5million (cross border transactions);
    b) a senior finance professional accused of illegal pornography offences.

  4. Jeffrey Lewis instructed again by a client in another complex tax evasion allegation.

 

Continue reading
885 Hits
NOV
15

Tesco Scandal - Allegations of Fraud and False Accounting

Back in 2014, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) commenced a criminal investigation into accounting practices at Tesco in respect of an estimated £326 million missing from the supermarket group’s accounts. Although the investigation is still underway, the SFO has decided to prosecute three former executives in respect of their roles in the scandal. Last week, their trial date was set for next September, when they will each face charges of fraud by abuse of position and false accounting.

In this blog post, we take a look at these two offences and our approach to defending against allegations of serious financial misconduct. At Lewis Nedas Law, our solicitors have been successfully defending clients against allegations of fraud and other financial crimes for over 30 years. We are particularly well-known and respected for our work helping individuals and companies deal with regulatory and criminal business investigations, such as those conducted by the SFO. Our aim is to take action early on, to help mitigate the consequences. For more information on how we may be able to assist you, please contact us.

Fraud by abuse of position

The offence of fraud by abuse of position is one of three classes found in the Fraud Act 2006 (the other two offences being fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3) and fraud by false representation (section 2)). Although it shares some elements with the other two offences, such as the need for dishonesty and an intention to make a gain or inflict a loss, it is a distinct offence that is committed where someone:

  • • occupies a position in which they’re expected to safeguard another’s financial interests, or at least not act against those interests, such as a director in respect of a company or a trustee in respect of a beneficiary;
  • • dishonestly abuses that position, either by act or omission, by failing to safeguard another’s financial interests; and,
  • • intends, by means of that abuse, to: make a gain for themselves or another; or, cause loss or expose another to a risk of loss. This final element, i.e. there being no need for actual loss or gain and the risk being sufficient, is common across all fraud offences.

Because ‘abuse’ is not legally defined in the act, it can cover a wide range of acts or omissions. Further, there is no need for an individual to know that they are in a position where they’re expected to safeguard another’s financial interests – a conviction is highly likely to follow if the prosecution can prove that abuse was dishonest and there was an intention to make a personal gain or cause another loss. If an accused is convicted of fraud by abuse of position, the maximum penalty is imprisonment not exceeding ten years, an unlimited fine or both.

False accounting

The offence of false accounting is found in section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. It is committed where someone:

  • • dishonestly, coupled with a view to gain or with intent to cause another loss;
  • • destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account, record or document made or required for an accounting purpose; or,
  • • furnishes information that produces or makes use of any account, record or document which, to their knowledge, is or may be misleading, false or deceptive.

This offence also covers a wide range of scenarios, including both the act of making a false entry and the omission of material particulars (where the omission may have the effect of significantly misleading), as well as covering someone who does not actually make a false entry or material omission but only concurs with the false entry or material omission. Further, a company will be guilty of the offence if it is committed by an officer of the company whose conduct can be attributed to the company.

Although the act doesn’t shed any light on the required degree of knowledge an accused must have in order to be guilty of the offence, the courts have clarified that the accused must have acted deliberately in making or concurring with a false account, i.e. they knew the account to be false or capable of being misleading. As such, the prosecution does not need to prove that there was an intention for any specific person to be misled. If an accused is convicted of false accounting, the maximum penalty is imprisonment not exceeding seven years.

Our approach to serious fraud defence

Our partner-led Serious Fraud team has vast experience defending complex fraud cases, many with a large international dimension. We employ our experience of working across jurisdictions in all cases being investigated by the SFO. Our multifaceted approach of involving specialist professionals to assist our client’s marks our Serious Fraud team out as a distinctive and progressive law firm that takes special care to protect our clients’ interests. We structure our approach to SFO investigations and prosecutions in a way that insulates our client’s from the majority of the administrative and logistical issues, allowing them to concentrate on working directly with our specialist solicitors to formulate a strategy to deal with the investigation. Find more information on SFO investigation and prosecution defence, and the approach of our pragmatic, practical and effective team here.

Lewis Nedas Law – Specialist Fraud Defence Solicitors London

Lewis Nedas Law have over 30 years’ experience successfully defending clients against fraud prosecutions. We are ranked in Chambers and the Legal 500 for the high quality of our fraud work. Our fraud solicitors are described as 'precise', 'steely determined' and 'always mindful of securing the best outcome for our clients'. Our specialist financial crime & fraud solicitors in the heart of London have extensive experience of preparing successful defences to fraud prosecutions including corporate fraud, whether these are brought by the Crown or a statutory body such as the FCA or the Department of Business innovation and Skills. Please contact Jeffrey Lewis or Siobhain Egan on 020 7387 2032 or contact us online.

Continue reading
1107 Hits

Accreditations
and Awards

legal 500 uk leading firm 2017 chambers leading firm 2017