Clause 12
Fraud Bill [Lords]
5:15 pm
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I find myself pipped to the post by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome in rising so quickly to his feet, and I would not rise myself unless there were a further slight gloss to apply to precisely the same point I wanted to raise. I think that part of the answer to his question can be given; namely, that as a company can only commit an offence through its officers, it must follow that if the body corporate is going to commit the offence, someone in the body corporate must be acting dishonestly. That would normally be the person who would be seen to be consenting or conniving to the commission of the offence.
But the nub, and maybe the point that the hon. Gentleman is getting at, is that it seems to me that it at least technically possible on the reading of clause 12—I am aware of its derivation; this has been around for rather a long time—for one to have a company where a body corporate commits an offence through the dishonesty of one of its directors, but with the consent of another of its directors who is not, himself, acting dishonestly. Technically, in such circumstances both of them would be convicted of the offence when the body corporate was convicted. If that is the case, it might be readily curable. However, the Solicitor-General might indicate that that is not necessary, or that if we were to try to cure it we would cause all sorts of other problems. However, that was what struck me about the clause as, I suspect, the main issue struck the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.