ECCTA failure-to-prevent-fraud software: the alternatives, compared
There are four honest ways to organise the evidence the failure-to-prevent-fraud offence expects: spreadsheets and SharePoint, a generalist GRC platform, law-firm advisory, or a focused defence-file tool. None is universally right. Here is what each is good at and where it strains — so you can choose on the facts, not the marketing.
Spreadsheets and SharePoint
Good for: The cheapest start, and familiar. Fine for a first inventory of policies and a small associated-person list.
Where it strains: No dated audit trail, weak access control, and version drift. Hard to show evidence was reviewed and operating over time — the part the defence depends on.
Generalist GRC platforms
Good for: Organisations that already run a broad GRC suite and want ECCTA to live alongside other frameworks.
Where it strains: Configuration-heavy and rarely shaped to the failure-to-prevent-fraud evidence model out of the box; the ECCTA workflow is something you build, not something you get.
Law-firm advisory only
Good for: Interpretation, procedure design, privilege, and the legal conclusions only qualified advisers can give.
Where it strains: Advisers interpret and advise; they do not run your day-to-day evidence operations. The operating record between engagements still has to live somewhere.
A focused defence-file tool
Good for: Teams that want the evidence operations — scope screening, attestations, review, audit trail, board packs — organised in one reviewable place that complements advisers.
Where it strains: It is a workflow layer, not legal advice: it organises and preserves the record, but the scope, classification, and reasonableness judgements stay with qualified reviewers.
Build vs buy: common questions
- Do I need dedicated software for failure to prevent fraud at all?
- Not necessarily — the offence requires reasonable procedures and the evidence of them, not a particular tool. Smaller estates can start in spreadsheets. The question is whether you can show, over time, that procedures existed and operated; that is where dedicated tooling tends to earn its place.
- Should we build it in-house or buy?
- Building in spreadsheets or your GRC suite is viable but carries the cost of designing the failure-to-prevent-fraud evidence model, the audit trail, and the attestation flow yourself. Buying a focused tool trades a subscription for that model being ready. Both are legitimate; the right answer depends on your size and existing stack.
- Does a tool replace our law firm?
- No. A defence-file tool organises evidence; it does not provide legal advice, design your procedures, or decide scope. The strongest setups pair adviser judgement with organised evidence operations, not one instead of the other.
- What should I compare these options on?
- The audit trail and dated review record, access control over sensitive evidence, the associated-person attestation flow, how well it fits the six-principles model, and how easily you can hand a board- or adviser-ready pack to a reviewer.
Keep going
DefenceFile organises evidence for legal and compliance review. It does not provide legal advice, create privilege, certify scope, certify reasonable procedures, or guarantee that a statutory defence will succeed.