Clause 12
Fraud Bill [Lords]
5:15 pm
Mike O'Brien (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; North Warwickshire, Labour)
The clause is aimed against those who have given informed consent, to use the phrase, in relation to an act that has been done. As the hon. Gentleman said, for a company to be liable, an officer of that company has to have committed the offence. That is the identification principle. Others may connive or consent, but they must know what they are conniving or consenting to. It must be an informed consent, or a connivance, so they must be sufficiently informed that they are aware of the nature—or, at least, to some extent, of the dishonesty or implications—of the act.
Some provisions of this type include neglect, but that is not included here. This is not about somebody who is a bit negligent and does not know; he has to have the ability to take a view on a matter, and then to have taken that view by having given his consent in a practical way. We consider that that informed consent is sufficient to amount to a knowledge of dishonesty. Whether a person is, himself, dishonest might well be a different matter; it is a fine line. The question is whether they are they well enough informed about the implications to have taken a step that amounts to consent based on uninformed knowledge of the possible consequences.