Criminal Finances Bill (Fifth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Wallace]

Perhaps I may clarify for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton that I said she used the word “neo-imperialism”—I never implied that she wanted to be neo-imperialist, but some people could describe it as that if we were to impose our will on Parliaments in some of our overseas territories.

Clause 38 creates a new offence that will be committed by relevant bodies that fail to prevent persons associated with them from criminally facilitating evasion of taxes owed to a country other than the United Kingdom. We have seen that criminals seeking to provide services to further their clients’ tax evasion will try to operate between the gaps between the legal systems of different countries. The measure will ensure that the UK is not a safe harbour for professional facilitators or the businesses for which they work. The new overseas tax evasion offence can be committed by relevant bodies that are formed or incorporated in the UK, or which are carrying out a business activity in the UK, or where the criminal act of facilitation occurs within the UK.

There is a necessarily broad scope for the new offence. It holds corporations that carry out a business in the UK, or the representatives of which are acting in the UK, to operate to the same high standards as UK businesses. The message is clear. Tax evasion is a crime. It is wrong. It is no less wrong where the revenue loss is suffered by another country. If a body is part of UK plc, or sends people to the UK, it is not okay to allow people to criminally facilitate the evasion of taxes, wherever they are owed.

The offence requires a dual criminality. Essentially, that means that, for a relevant body to be liable, the criminal law of the country suffering the tax loss must recognise tax evasion and the facilitating of tax evasion as criminal offences in their jurisdiction, and the laws must be broadly equivalent to those in the UK.

The offence does not require relevant bodies to have a thorough understanding of the tax laws in each jurisdiction, but rather to ask itself the question, “If we were providing these services to a UK taxpayer client, would this be legal?” If the answer is yes, there is no question of criminal liability under the new overseas fraud offence.

The offence is not about the UK policing the world’s tax affairs. We envisage that a prosecution for the overseas tax evasion offence will take place only where there would otherwise be a failure of justice—for example, where the country suffering the tax loss was unwilling or unable to take action because of an inability to handle a complex international fraud trial, or was unable to investigate and prosecute because of corruption concerns. I will leave my explanation of the clause there and allow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton to speak to her new clauses before I respond.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mrs Main. The Minister referred to this as the Criminal Finances Bill and the clue is in the name. People who commit an offence and go to prison come out and go on probation. New clause 7 would create a similar thing—a sort of corporate probation order that would allow courts to require bodies found guilty of a UK or foreign tax evasion facilitation offence to take steps to improve their internal procedures and minimize the chance of a person working for that company committing the same offence in future. That would be an important step in encouraging large organisations to take responsibility for those they hire and the actions they undertake, and more importantly in ensuring that financial crime and misconduct is not repeated by others in the organisation.

Before making an application for a probation order, the prosecution would have to consult enforcement agencies. Once a corporate probation order had been issued, any organisation that failed to comply with it would be subject to a fine. Currently, the only remedies a court may impose upon a company convicted of an offence is a fine, disgorgement of profit and compensation. Corporate probation orders would be an additional tool that prosecutors could seek. Courts could impose conditions requiring companies to undertake remedial action to their management and compliance procedures to ensure that the offending is not repeated.

Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, courts can impose remedial orders on companies to require them to remedy any management failure that led to an offence occurring. This provides a workable pre-existing model for such orders. Under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, if a company is offered a deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, a prosecutor can require a company to implement a compliance programme or make changes to an existing compliance programme. There is no equivalent power in relation to convictions. DPAs are reserved for companies that self-report their misdemeanours and co-operate with enforcement authorities.

Although prosecutors could, theoretically at least, use financial reporting orders to require a company to provide financial information, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, it is not clear that that would include information on compliance procedures. Additionally, such orders are heavy-handed, require separate court proceedings and require a prosecutor to prove that the risk of reoffending is sufficiently high.

The effect of that discrepancy is a ridiculous imbalance: companies that self-report and co-operate may be subject to greater monitoring of their compliance programme than companies that do not and are convicted. The result is that the companies that most need monitoring of their compliance procedures—those whose procedures did not pick up the wrongdoing in the first place—get none, which is a huge deterrent to self-reporting, and puts a greater burden on enforcement agencies.

The Opposition believe that corporate probation orders are required to remedy that clear anachronism. Companies and defence lawyers have noted the more stringent compliance programme monitoring requirements under DPAs as one factor, among others, that puts companies off self-reporting wrongdoing to the Serious Fraud Office. The discrepancy between what happens under DPAs and what happens on conviction is creating a disincentive for companies to self-report.

At the end of the day, we need to encourage self-reporting in a framework in which companies feel that they are able to work with enforcement agencies to deal with rogue elements or individuals. The alternative would see the continuation of a culture of secrecy in which those at the top deliberately turn a blind eye to what those at the bottom do, and in which financial misconduct is not limited to an individual, but instilled and passed on to others in an organisation.

[Richard Arkless]

The Scottish National party is broadly in support of the new clauses. In particular, a corporate probation order would give an opportunity for an offending company to have its processes meticulously examined to ensure that they are fit for purpose going forward. We support new clause 8 on the potential disqualification of directors, which goes beyond the relevant body offences in the Bill. As a matter of principle, we think it will concentrate minds and ensure the protocols are fit for purpose if the directors at the top of the organisation feel the liability could be at their heels, as it were. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[The Chair]

Order. I gather that Mr Dowd wants a second bite at the cherry on new clause 8.

[Peter Dowd]

I apologise, Mrs Main. I was going to deal with new clause 8 and was pre-empted, I am afraid. New clause 8 relates to the facilitation of tax evasion offences and the disqualification of directors.

It will be pretty apparent to hon. Members that a central theme to proceedings so far, as promulgated by virtually everybody, is the notion of transparency in the actions of those in positions of stewardship, such as directors of companies. Opaqueness has its advantages, I have no doubt, but when it leads to illegality there must be action to deal with it. Given that, the new clause would require the Secretary of State

“to investigate the directors of a company found guilty of a UK or foreign tax evasion offence to establish whether the directors should be subject to a disqualification order for the failure to have proper procedures in place to prevent agents of that company facilitating tax evasion.”

Under the new offences covering the facilitation of tax evasion, a company could be criminally held to account if an employee commits such an offence. That is a huge step forward. However, there is a danger that senior executives, who are ultimately responsible for ensuring the company has in place the procedures to prevent its involvement in the facilitation of tax evasion, will escape any individual accountability under such an offence. The purpose of new clause 8 is to ensure that, where a company is convicted, the director of that company should be investigated with a view to disqualification, as happens currently when a company is held to have breached competition law, for example.

A perfectly legitimate question is whether new clause 8 is taking a hammer to crack a nut. That has been alluded to in past debates. I contend that it is not, because tax evasion has huge implications for the public purse, not just in lost revenue but in relation to public confidence in the tax system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As the son of a Fifer, I know that one always does well to listen to a Fifer—or one faces the consequences.

I am also grateful to the Scottish National party and The Herald newspaper for raising this issue. It is a genuine issue of abuse, as they have rightly pointed out. We have taken important steps to prevent the misuse of corporations for money laundering, corruption and tax evasion. The UK’s public register of company beneficial ownership went live this year—we were the first G20 country to put such a register in place. At the London anti-corruption summit, we committed to going further and creating a register of the beneficial ownership of foreign companies that own real property or wish to be involved in public sector procurement contracts in the UK.

However, we must not be complacent. Hon. Members have rightly raised the issue of Scottish limited partnerships a number of times. I hope they are assured that I take it very seriously. The stories in The Herald and the intelligence assessments that I have received from our law enforcement agencies are very concerning.

As I committed to do on Second Reading, I have spoken on this subject to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who is responsible for small business, consumers and corporate responsibility, and she shares my concerns about the abuse of SLPs. We agreed that we need to get the balance right between ensuring that the UK remains a good place to do business for the law abiding and cracking down on abuse. Her Department recently published a discussion paper that invites views on a number of questions about transposing corporate transparency requirements under the fourth anti-money laundering directive. The catchy name is “Implementation of the Fourth Money Laundering Directive—Discussion paper on the transposition of Article 30: beneficial ownership of corporate and other legal entities”.

[Peter Dowd]

Too pithy.

[Mr Wallace]

I can repeat it for those who want to write it down. That was launched on 3 November. I think that it is a six-week consultation. As a starting point, I strongly urge the Scottish National party to make a submission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Annual reporting: Adequacy of resources

“(1) In Part 12 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (miscellaneous and general), after section 455, insert—

“455A Annual reports on resources

(1) A relevant authority must, no later than 1 June in each calendar year, prepare an annual report on the adequacy of the resources available from money voted by Parliament for the exercise of any functions of that authority—

(a) under this Act;

(b) in connection with investigations into terrorist financing offences under the Terrorism Act 2000;

(c) under Part 3 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017.

(2) In this section, “a relevant authority” means—

(a) the National Crime Agency;

(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(c) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, and

(d) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

(3) The reports prepared in accordance with subsection (1) shall be sent—

(a) in the case of the National Crime Agency, to the Secretary of State;

(b) in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, to the Attorney General, and

(c) in the case of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(4) The person receiving annual reports in accordance with subsection (3) must lay those reports before each House of Parliament in the form in which they were received no later than 30 June in the same calendar year, together with a statement on plans for future resources to be provided from money voted by Parliament.”.”.—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause would require the National Crime Agency and other agencies to report annually to Parliament on the adequacy of its resource to fulfil its functions relating to combating financial crime.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Dowd]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is not a technical clause. It goes to the heart of transparency of resources for the enforcement agencies concerned. It is crucial that they are adequately funded, given the nature of the task that they are dealing with. They are chasing billions of pounds of evaded tax in relation to crime, with a particular emphasis on concerns around terrorism, and it is therefore perfectly legitimate for Parliament to be directly reported to on the adequacy of resources. That is the starting pitch.

In the evidence session, I, along with other Members, in particular the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, as I recall, asked many questions of witnesses about the resources available to law enforcement agencies. To Detective Superintendent Harman, who heads the national terrorist financial investigation unit at the Met, the hon. Lady asked:

“Are you confident that the enforcement agencies will have sufficient resources to make full use of the new powers in the Bill?”––[Official Report, Criminal Finances Public Bill Committee, 15 November 2016; c. 9, Q8.]

“Yes” was the response from the police officer and the witness accompanying him. I have to say, it is a pleasure to have the police helping us with our inquiries, rather than the other way around.

Clearly, the adequacy of resources goes to the heart of the ability of enforcement agencies to stamp out and tackle abuse within the financial sectors, particularly that which is linked to crime and terrorism. It is self-evident that, if the resources are not there, or if they are not used forensically and wisely, the agencies concerned will certainly not fulfil the intention of the Bill. It is worth reminding hon. Members of the intention of the Bill, as set out in the explanatory notes—I alluded to this in the evidence sessions last week—namely,

“to give law enforcement agencies, and partners, the capabilities and powers to recover the proceeds of crime, tackle money laundering and corruption, and counter terrorist financing.”

It is fair to say the Government could not be any more plain on this matter. The measure is, after all, the Criminal Finances Bill, so the clue is in the title. Given that we all agree with the Government’s intention as set out in the overview of the Bill—in the section relating to its mission—it is incumbent upon us to establish whether the resources are available to effect that good and laudable intention, notwithstanding the view expressed by the superintendent and his colleagues that they felt that they had enough money.

One way of holding the Government to account is to ensure that those intentions are backed up with the wherewithal to carry them out through a parliamentary annual review, given the crucial nature of these issues. All those who were asked about the adequacy of the resources to do the job agreed that the intention of the Bill was sound, and I do not dispute that. However, aside from the enforcement agencies themselves, which felt that they had enough to do the job—I am not sure whether that was in hope rather than in expectation—it is fair to say that most of the other witnesses’ enthusiasm for that element of the equation was not quite as clear-cut, although I would stand corrected and am challengeable on that.

For illustration purposes, Members may recall that when I asked the witnesses representing the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute, Corruption Watch, Global Witness and Transparency International a question about whether they felt that—in their experience—the resources were available to do the job, there was a bit of a tumbleweed moment, with sideways looks at one another. I read the clear body language—and you do not have to be an experienced psychologist to have spotted it—that in their experience they felt that there clearly were not enough resources, and that they felt that that would hinder the enforcement agencies in doing their job. In response to the question from my hon. Friend for Ealing Central and Acton about the adequacy of resources, the director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies Mr Keatinge said:

“Resourcing is clearly a major issue. Cynically, one of the reasons for involving the private sector is to harness it to do some of the work…I do not believe we have the resources that we need.” ––[Official Report, Criminal Finances Public Bill Committee, 15 November 2016; c. 69-70, Q150.]

I accept that that is a view, but it is a view that has been reached after asking expert witnesses. We at least have to listen to them and take on board some of the concerns that they had. Moreover, when I followed up with the representative from the Metropolitan Police Authority, the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs Council earlier the response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, I felt that they had begun to row back a little on their unequivocal answer to the hon. Lady.

That is why it is paramount that the professionals, and those whose day to day job is to tackle financial crime adequately, are adequately equipped with the resources to do the job. That is why we have to challenge them, and it is our responsibility to challenge them. In a sense, it is Parliament’s responsibility to challenge the Government and the Executive, and one of the best ways of doing that is for the information to be reported directly, rather than articulated through some sort of pontifical process to Parliament. I can inform Members now—I do not think I have to, but I will—that the people the law enforcement agencies are trying to catch are ahead of the game in relation to the crimes that they are committing, and we need to ensure that the enforcement agencies have the resources to do the job.

A clear example of where annual reporting would be effective is in the oversight of the IT system for SARs, which I know the Minister has referred to as being revamped or changed. As far as I am aware, ELMER is designed to process up to 20,000 suspicious activity reports; it is currently processing up to 381,000 of them. Of those, only 15,000 are looked at in detail, as was noted in the Home Affairs Committee’s fifth report of the 2016-17 Session, “Proceeds of crime”. That raises the question of whether reporting that many SARs is simply over the top, and borne out of caution on the part of banks. If so, then that approach wastes a good deal of time for those doing the reporting, and for the receiving agencies, who have to search through the haystack. Alternatively, if the reporting numbers are, to all intents and purposes, a reasonable reflection of concern that has reached a mutually agreed threshold, that raises another question: why are so many reports being ignored, brushed aside or not acted on? The Minister has reassured us that they are not under his office carpet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I started by talking about Parliament being able to have reports from the agencies concerned, given the seriousness of the issue facing us. The Minister, reasonably, told us that 100% of the proceeds will go to the appropriate agencies and be divvied up as appropriate. I completely accept that, in good faith, and repeat the point made earlier: that he is a reasonable man. I do not challenge the Minister’s reasonableness; my challenge is based on the fact that Parliament, given the nature of this issue, is perfectly entitled to receive reports from agencies—no doubt articulated through the Departments in some fashion—on their resources. A definition of “adequacy” is that something is proportionate, or sufficient for its purpose. That is a matter for Parliament to discuss. It will not necessarily be able to do anything other than discuss it, but the discussion may produce views and experiences for the Minister to consider.

As to the Minister’s point that this is not something to go into primary legislation, about this time last year I was on the Committee that for 17 sittings considered the Housing and Planning Bill. There were all sorts of things in that Bill far less important to the health and integrity of the nation. Indeed, in the past, local government Acts—primary legislation—have even included provisions on how many hours off a person in one local authority can have, compared with a person in another. Primary legislation can be used in a range of ways. It is for the Government of the day to say, “We have nothing to fear from the reports coming before Parliament, from openness and transparency, or from challenge.”

[Mr Wallace]

Anyone who is a victim of financial crime takes that crime incredibly seriously; the same goes for victims of violent crime. The National Crime Agency has a number of threats to deal with, including drugs, firearms, child sexual exploitation, financial crime and foreign national offenders. Our police forces deal with a range of threats. Are we to say, on the principle that the hon. Gentleman has set out, that primary legislation should require our law enforcement agencies to produce a report every year, under each heading across the whole range of crime, on whether they believe they have adequate funding to do their job? If so, I envisage that our law enforcement agencies will be full of people doing reports all year, arguing about whether resourcing is “adequate”, and submitting them to Parliament, rather than getting on and prosecuting the people we need prosecuted.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a fair point, but we know that, every day, Parliament debates issues that are far less important for the body politic, security and the safety of the country. The point that I am trying to make is that the issue is of great importance and significance. It is so different in degree as to be different in kind. My hon. Friends and I therefore say that Parliament should have this opportunity. This is not a technical proposal. I repeat that, given the nature of the threat to the country, and the importance that people place on the safety of the country, we would like the report to be made to Parliament.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Dowd]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would create a corporate offence of failing to prevent financial crime. It would compel the financial services industry to take greater steps to stamp out financial crime, and to tackle tax evasion and other economic crimes. At the heart of the new clause is the need for a level playing field, and to end the impunity that many large global organisations have enjoyed, whereby directors have plausible deniability if they are not involved in decisions taken at a lower level by employees.

The 2015 Conservative party manifesto stated:

“We are...making it a crime if companies fail to put in place measures to stop economic crime, such as tax evasion, in their organisations and making sure that the penalties are large enough to punish and deter.”

At the UK anti-corruption summit on 12 May this year, the Government announced that the Ministry of Justice would consult on an extension of

“the criminal offence of a corporate ‘failing to prevent’ beyond bribery and tax evasion to other economic crimes.”

They acknowledged that law enforcement struggles

“to prosecute corporations for money laundering, false accounting, and fraud under existing common laws.”

As far as I am aware, no consultation has been announced; it appears that the consultation is likely to have been downgraded to a call for evidence, bringing further delay and sending the wrong message.

The Opposition are always willing to assist the Government where it is sensible and in the interests of the country to do so. The new clause would enable the Government to fulfil their manifesto promise, which I know is dear to the hearts of every Government Member; I know that they recite the manifesto with catechistic fervour before, during and after meetings of the 1922 committee. The Minister will sleep easier knowing that he has delivered his part of the schedule ahead of time. I expect Government Members will want to fulfil the UK summit’s commitment before the parliamentary calendar becomes clogged up with Brexit-related measures. The Prime Minister has promised to deliver an economy in which everybody plays by the same rules.

UK corporate liability laws rely on a “directing mind” test, which requires prosecutors to prove that senior board level executives intended misconduct to occur. This moves the focus of attention away from the bigger fishes, and on to small and medium-sized enterprises, where directors are more involved and can therefore be more easily prosecuted—quite rightly, if appropriate. This was a concern of some of the witnesses. The system undermines corporate governance by creating perverse incentives to keep boards in the dark about decisions that may lead to misconduct. Several recent major scandals, including LIBOR and Euribor, have resulted in no prosecutions against companies owing to the current corporate liability regime.

Where individuals have been prosecuted under conspiracy to defraud, they have argued that their actions were condoned and encouraged by their employers. However, the Serious Fraud Office has not charged any of the employers concerned, which include Barclays, UBS and Deutsche Bank, and not a single UK financial institution faced criminal charges as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. A “failure to prevent” offence for fraud and conspiracy to defraud would have enabled such prosecutions. Similarly, in 2015 the SFO was forced to drop its case against Olympus after the Court of Appeal found that it was not illegal under current corporate liability laws for companies to mislead their auditors. This was also the case in 2015, when the CPS stated that because of corporate liability laws, it could not mount a successful prosecution against the companies in the phone hacking scandal, which included some of the largest tabloid newspapers in the UK. Although the new clause would not specifically address the phone hacking case, it highlights the urgent need for broader corporate liability reform.

The Government also need to tackle the facilitators of corruption.