UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

View the related checklists about False instrument

Offences for which a DPA may be entered into—checklist

Offences for which a DPA may be entered into—checklist A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is an agreement between an organisation and a designated prosecutor to enable the latter to defer a prosecution by staying an indictment on specific terms. No proceedings in relation to the matters covered by the DPA may be instituted against the organisation while the DPA remains in force. A DPA therefore allows a company to continue without the threat of a lengthy criminal investigation and a costly prosecution hanging over it. For detailed information on DPAs, see Practice Notes: • Deferred prosecution agreements • DPA process • Terms and content of a DPA • DPAs in practice DPA’s are only available to organisations in respect of the offences specified under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, Sch 17 (CCA 2013). The checklist below, lists the offences for which a DPA may be entered into, including common law and statutory offences. In addition to the offences below, any offence that is ancillary to those listed below,...

View the related practice notes about False instrument

Forgery

Offence of making a false instrumentA person is guilty of forgery under section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (FCA 1981) if they make a false instrument, with the intention that they or another uses it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it, to do or not to do some act to their own or any other person's prejudice.'Instrument'FCA 1981, s 8 provides a definition of instrument applicable for all of the offences created by FCA 1981. Instrument includes any document, postal stamp, Inland Revenue stamp, disk, tape, sound track or other device on or in which information is recorded or stored by mechanical, electronic or other means.Document is not defined by FCA 1981 but it does not include any currency notes which are covered by the counterfeiting offences in Part II of FCA 1981. See Practice Note: Counterfeiting notes and coins.Electronic impulses representing passwords for accessing computers are not instruments so 'hacking' into a computer or the misuse of...

Creating or providing false documents or information

Offences relating to untrue declarations etcA person commits an offence under the section 167(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA 1979) if they knowingly or recklessly:•make or sign•cause to be made or signed, or•deliver or cause to be delivered to HMRCany declaration, notice, certificate or other document which is untrue in a material particular.A person also commits an offence under CEMA 1979, s 167(1)(b) if they make a statement in answer to any question by a customs officer which they are required to answer which is untrue in a material particular. Both offences under CEMA 1979, s 167(1) are either way offences.CEMA 1979, s 167(3) creates exactly the same offence as in s 167(1) except that no mental element is required. The offence is therefore a strict liability or absolute offence. CEMA 1979, s 167(3) offence is summary only so can only be tried in the magistrates' court. See Practice Note: Strict liability.Elements of the offence under the CEMA 1979, s 167(1)Knowingly or recklesslyTo be guilty of...

View the related News about False instrument

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—5 December 2024

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: the need for expert evidence in Part 26A restructuring plans to comply with CPR 35 (Re Chaptre Finance Plc), an analysis of applications to set aside default judgment in insolvency proceedings (Scenic International Group Ltd (in provisional liquidation) v Adenaike), an analysis of successful fraudulent trading and other claims (London Capital & Finance v Thomson), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

Insolvency Service prosecutes fireworks trader for fraud and insolvency offences

The Insolvency Service has successfully prosecuted the director of Ikandy Wholesale Ltd, Raashid Khan, resulting in a four-year prison sentence for fraud, forgery, and insolvency offences. Khan, a Birmingham fireworks trader, forged multiple documents to evade a £75,000 payment for fireworks and to circumvent bank account restrictions. He fraudulently obtained a £50,000 Covid Bounce Back Loan and withdrew £62,158 after his company entered liquidation. Khan has been disqualified as a company director for 12 years and was convicted of using a false instrument, fraud in anticipation of winding-up, and fraud by false representation. This case underscores the Insolvency Service's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the insolvency regime and protecting public.