ECCTA failure to prevent fraud for law firms
Law firms already operate under SRA and AML obligations, but the ECCTA failure-to-prevent-fraud offence asks a separate question: can you show the procedures that prevent fraud committed for the firm's benefit, including by people acting on its behalf? DefenceFile structures that scattered evidence into a single reviewable defence file alongside your existing risk frameworks.
Not sure if you are in scope? Most legal services and law firms that meet the large-organisation size test are in scope — check the size test or the scope Q&A.
The sample board pack opens in your browser — no email, no form. 90-day pilots are £950/month; the setup fee is waived if the first working session does not produce the agreed artifacts.
Why legal services and law firms tend to be in scope
Larger firms, alternative business structures, and legal groups commonly meet the large-organisation thresholds on turnover, balance sheet, or employee headcount. Networks of referrers, agents, counsel, and outsourced providers mean the associated-person population reaches well beyond direct employees and is worth mapping deliberately.
Scope is a legal assessment that turns on your group size and facts. See the UK-nexus and scope Q&A and reserve the conclusion for qualified reviewers.
Associated persons to map in legal services
An associated person is wider than payroll. These are the relationships worth organising evidence around for this sector.
- Introducers and referral arrangements (estate agents, brokers, claims firms)
- Consultant solicitors and self-employed fee-earners under a brand
- Counsel, agents, and process servers instructed on matters
- Outsourced cashiering, billing, and legal-process providers
- Title insurers, search providers, and conveyancing panel partners
Fraud scenarios and the evidence to capture
Illustrative scenarios where a listed base fraud offence could be committed to benefit the organisation. They are prompts for human review, not findings.
An introducer inflates or fabricates client or claim details to push instructions through that generate fees for the firm.
Evidence focus: Capture introducer onboarding, vetting, and attestation evidence covering fraud-prevention expectations and ongoing oversight.
A consultant or fee-earner manipulates billing, disbursements, or time records to benefit the firm's revenue.
Evidence focus: Organise the supervision, file-review, and billing-control records applied to consultants and self-employed fee-earners.
Misrepresentation in conveyancing or transactional work by an agent or panel partner that advances a deal the firm profits from.
Evidence focus: Record the source-of-funds, verification, and panel-management controls evidencing fraud-prevention checks on transactions.
What the defence file should prioritise
- An associated-person register spanning introducers, consultants, counsel, and outsourced providers
- Attestations that fraud-prevention expectations were communicated to referrers and panel partners
- Links between fraud-prevention procedures and existing SRA, AML, and client-money frameworks
- Board and management oversight of the failure-to-prevent-fraud risk assessment across practice groups
Legal services ECCTA fraud questions
- We already meet SRA and AML requirements — does that cover ECCTA?
- Those frameworks are valuable, but the failure-to-prevent-fraud offence is a distinct statutory question about fraud committed to benefit the firm. DefenceFile helps you evidence the overlap and the gaps without claiming either regime is satisfied.
- Are introducers and consultant solicitors associated persons?
- A referrer or consultant may be an associated person where it performs services for or on behalf of the firm. That is a legal assessment; the platform organises the evidence by relationship to support a qualified reviewer's conclusion.
- Can software tell us whether we are in scope?
- No. Scope depends on the size test and the facts of your firm and group. DefenceFile structures the scope-screening inputs and reserves the conclusion for qualified reviewers.
Related sectors
- Financial servicesBanks, asset managers, and fintechs face ECCTA failure-to-prevent-fraud risk via introducers and agents. Organise scope, risks, and a defence file.
- Professional servicesConsultancies, accountants, and advisory firms carry ECCTA fraud exposure through associates and referral partners. Organise scope, risks, and a defence file.
- Real EstateHow property firms organise ECCTA failure-to-prevent-fraud evidence across agents, introducers, and valuers — scope, risks, and a reviewable defence file.
Keep going
- Failure to prevent fraud: the offence explainedThe statutory offence, the size test, and what a defence file is for.
- Reasonable proceduresHow the six principles map to evidence you can organise and review.
- Failure to prevent fraud: straight answersDirect, sourced answers on scope, penalties, the deadline, and the defence.
- Pricing and pilotsHow a structured pilot review of your evidence works.
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.