Clause 39 - Offences
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
10:15 am
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 148, in
clause 39, page 23, line 12, at end insert
'but
(c) for the avoidance of doubt, if a member of staff of the financial institution passes on a statement which turns out on later analysis to be false or to have given a misleading impression, but this has been caused merely by negligence or inadvertence the financial institution shall not be guilty of an offence'.
We have now reached the amendment that I mentioned when I spoke briefly in the stand part debate on clause 34, during what I suppose was almost a point of order. I reinforce the point that the amendment should probably apply to both clauses 34 and 39, but that is my fault.
The amendment would insert an avoidance of doubt provision into the Bill. It is clear that there could be grounds for a criminal offence if a financial institution or its staff deliberately tried to mislead the prosecuting authorities or acted recklessly by providing incorrect information. However, it is important to make it absolutely clear in the Bill that mere carelessness will not lead to criminal prosecutions of, in some cases, quite junior staff.
Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West) rose—