Fraud allegations and post-interview strategies

Allegations of fraud often have a major impact on business operations and can interfere with individuals’ personal lives. It can be very stressful and can often take a long time to resolve, particularly for those without legal representation as a lack of urgency can creep in when there are no lawyers seeking regular updates and reminding the authorities of the need for an efficient and expeditious investigation.

Instructing a lawyer with expertise in dealing with allegations of serious fraud is very important. Such cases frequently involve allegations relating to large sums of money, extensive documentation, and a complex legal framework. Fraud cases require a level of expertise to not only consider the evidence but also to advise on the best strategy on how to approach the case both before and following any interview under caution. 

At Olliers, we pride ourselves on a proactive approach to the defence work, particularly during the investigation stage of the case and where possible will always seek to resolve the case at an early stage.

Who investigates fraud in the UK?

Multiple prosecuting agencies handle fraud investigations in the UK, depending on the type and the value of the alleged fraud.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) takes on complex, high-profile fraud cases, often involving alleged corporate crimes.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates and investigates financial misconduct in regulated industries whilst the police are able to investigate alleged fraud cases across the board and on a nationwide level. Other bodies who investigate fraud include Trading Standards as well as the National Crime Agency and NHS Counter Fraud Authority, amongst others.

When should I instruct a solicitor if I am facing a fraud investigation?

It is very important to seek advice from a specialist fraud solicitor at an early stage in an investigation. A specialist solicitor at Olliers will assist in building the strongest possible defence and offering advice and assistance in relation to strategies which will maximise the prospects of success. We can also help our clients prepare for the worst-case scenario too and to mitigate potential penalties from the outset. Our proactive approach means that we often look to make strong representations following an interview, if appropriate.

What are the benefits of instructing a specialist team like Olliers?

Our specialist team have in-depth knowledge of complex fraud legislation and extensive experience dealing with agencies like the SFO and FCA, amongst others. They can prepare a tailored defence strategy, protect your rights, and look to secure reduced penalties. Specialist solicitors are also experienced in navigating complex financial documentation and legal procedures, which is essential in serious fraud cases and will inevitably help ease the pressure during what is no doubt a very stressful process

Arranging interviews

If the police/law enforcement agency secure enough evidence then they will often look to interview a suspect by way of an arrest but it is preferable to attend on a voluntary basis and Olliers can assist with arranging this, potentially avoiding all of the disruption and upset that can flow from an unexpected arrest.

Pre-charge engagement and written representations

Pre-charge engagement refers to any voluntary engagement between parties to an investigation after the first interview under caution.  It is a voluntary process and can be terminated at any time. Pre-charge representations arguing against prosecution – contending that there is not a ‘realistic prospect of a conviction’ or that a prosecution is not in the ‘public interest’ are a particular area of interest and expertise for the team at Olliers and we are one of the go-to firms for clients up and down the country for such matters.

In essence, it refers to a process where we make representations to the prosecuting authority that the case should not proceed to court. We will seek to argue that the case should be closed with ‘no further action’ but if not appropriate we may suggest that an out of court disposal, for example a caution, is more appropriate. This is especially important in fraud investigations which can drag on for many years.

If a suspect denies an allegation, then the process can be used to identify lines of inquiry which may lead to evidence or material that supports a defence. In fraud cases there will often be large amounts of documentation. Accordingly, if a client, through us, is able to identify specific documents which point away from them having committed any wrongdoing then we may be able to achieve a much quicker resolution than without pre-charge engagement.

Pre-charge engagement is encouraged by the Code for Crown Prosecutors and significantly, Annex B states that it “may impact decisions as to charge”.  A no comment interview does not preclude the possibility of pre-charge engagement. Pre-charge engagement is not appropriate in every case and another interview may be appropriate. If you have already been interviewed and are unsure about your next steps then contact our specialist team at Olliers.

Further interviews under caution

In some cases, it may be appropriate to request a further interview. Olliers specialise in representation at police station or, other law enforcement agencies premises.

There may be advantages to having a further interview, for example it may enable a more detailed account to be provided and limit the risk of adverse inferences being drawn should the matter proceed to court. There are of course risks too, as with any interview under caution, because whilst the solicitor is able to obtain disclosure, they are not entitled to absolutely all of the evidence and they are not able to see the questions which will be asked of the suspect.

Cautionable correspondence

The drawbacks of an interview under caution as detailed, are that the suspect/solicitor is not able to see the questions which will be asked in advance of the interview. On the other hand, cautionable correspondence is a process where the agency sends  a document to a suspect with a list of questions they want answers to, with a caution similar to that of a police caution, as follows;

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

The advantage of this over a traditional interview under caution is that the suspect is able to see the questions in advance of providing answers and so a carefully considered response can be provided. Furthermore, the process does not require the stress of attending an interview in person.

Legal advice should be taken in relation to the response as the answers can be used in evidence just the same as answers in an interview under caution and could lead to a conviction if admissions are made, even if there is no other evidence.

Cautionable correspondence can be an excellent option provided that specialist legal advice is taken by a suspect when considering a response.

Contesting restraint orders

Authorities have to the power to freeze assets using restraint orders to prevent monies being moved. This may impact bank accounts, property, or other assets. A specialist serious fraud solicitor can assist with challenging a restraint order by applying to vary the order, ensuring access to necessary funds and retaining essential assets.

The Olliers team has considerable experience dealing with applications to vary and discharge restraint orders, they often feature during pre-charge investigations where offences of serious fraud are alleged. The strategy of contesting restraint orders often goes hand in hand with the strategy for preventing a prosecution.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements

A Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) is a legal agreement which enables a company accused of a serious corporate crime to avoid prosecution by agreeing to meet certain conditions. DPAs are usually used as a way to resolve cases without going to trial. Under a DPA, the prosecution of the company is deferred, i.e. paused provided that the company fulfils specific obligations set out in the agreement.

The SFO has used DPAs in cases involving companies accused of bribery or corruption. DPAs allow companies to take responsibility and are forced to reform but able to avoid full repercussions of a criminal conviction, as long as they do not breach the terms of the DPA.

Olliers Solicitors – specialist fraud lawyers

It is crucial to engage a specialist solicitor early in the process to consider your case and the best approach to take. If you or your company face investigation or prosecution please call us on 0161 834 1515. We have offices in both London and Manchester and our specialist team of lawyers can advise and represent you in relation to your case.