MY BROTHER’S KEEPER
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”: Genesis 4-9.
It has widely been reported that accountancy firm Bennett Verby has become the first entity against which charges have been brought under Part 3 Criminal Finances Act 2017.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Bennett Verby, an accountancy firm in Stockport, was charged in relation to an alleged research and development repayment fraud in Manchester crown court in August 2025.
Alongside the company, six individuals have been charged with offences including cheating the public revenue and money laundering.
THE LEGISLATION
Part 3 Criminal Finances Act 2017
45 Failure to prevent facilitation of UK tax evasion offences
(1) A relevant body (B) is guilty of an offence if a person commits a UK tax evasion facilitation offence when acting in the capacity of a person associated with B.
(2) It is a defence for B to prove that, when the UK tax evasion facilitation offence was committed—
(a) B had in place such prevention procedures as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have in place, or
(b) it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have any prevention procedures in place.
(3) In subsection (2) “prevention procedures” means procedures designed to prevent persons acting in the capacity of a person associated with B from committing UK tax evasion facilitation offences.
(4) In this Part “UK tax evasion offence” means—
(a) an offence of cheating the public revenue, or
(b) an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom consisting of being knowingly concerned in, or in taking steps with a view to, the fraudulent evasion of a tax.
(5) In this Part “UK tax evasion facilitation offence” means an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom consisting of—
(a) being knowingly concerned in, or in taking steps with a view to, the fraudulent evasion of a tax by another person,
(b) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a UK tax evasion offence, or
(c) being involved art and part in the commission of an offence consisting of being knowingly concerned in, or in taking steps with a view to, the fraudulent evasion of a tax.
(6) Conduct carried out with a view to the fraudulent evasion of tax by another person is not to be regarded as a UK tax evasion facilitation offence by virtue of subsection (5)(a) unless the other person has committed a UK tax evasion offence facilitated by that conduct.
(7) For the purposes of this section “tax” means a tax imposed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, including national insurance contributions under—
(a) Part 1 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, or
(b) Part 1 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
(8) A relevant body guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
44 Meaning of relevant body and acting in the capacity of an associated person
(1) This section defines expressions used in this Part.
(2) “Relevant body” means a body corporate or partnership (wherever incorporated or formed).
(3) “Partnership” means—
(a) a partnership within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890, or
(b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907,
or a firm or entity of a similar character formed under the law of a foreign country.
(4) A person (P) acts in the capacity of a person associated with a relevant body (B) if P is—
(a) an employee of B who is acting in the capacity of an employee,
(b) an agent of B (other than an employee) who is acting in the capacity of an agent, or
(c) any other person who performs services for or on behalf of B who is acting in the capacity of a person performing such services.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(c) the question whether or not P is a person who provides services for or on behalf of B is to be determined by reference to all the relevant circumstances and not merely by reference to the nature of the relationship between P and B.
THE PROBLEM
A company with skyscraper city center offices [C] hires a window cleaning company [W]. W is helping its directors to do some tax evasion, by keeping 2 sets of books and doing cash in hand jobs. The city center company pays the window cleaner firm on proper invoices, through the books.
W are “associated” with C: (c) any other person who performs services for or on behalf of B who is acting in the capacity of a person performing such services
C looks to be liable under section 45(1): A relevant body (B) is guilty of an offence if a person commits a UK tax evasion facilitation offence when acting in the capacity of a person associated with B
So, C gets prosecuted, and then has to put up the “reasonable” defense under section 45(2).
There is an obvious problem here. C has no legal way of monitoring what another completely independent company W does. What is C supposed to do: issue to every service provider a printed checklist which declares that the service provider is not committing tax evasion?
The Uk already has a common law offence of conspiracy to evade tax. Although that offence has problems by reason of its elastic quality, at least the prosecution must prove an agreement and shared intent to evade tax.
The Part 3 CFA 2017 legislation seems designed to remove that essential element of criminality. Mere association is enough to get the offence going. Essentially the corporate defendant then has to prove a defense: not only that there was no agreement but that there never could be such an agreement.
In a diverse integrated market economy, this is making every company the keeper of everyone else, even if not their brother: on pain of prosecution.