ECCTA failure to prevent fraud: a guide for MLROs
MLROs already run financial-crime frameworks, but the failure-to-prevent-fraud offence asks a distinct question: can you show the procedures that prevent fraud committed for the firm's benefit? DefenceFile helps you evidence the overlap and the gaps without claiming either framework is met.
The sample board pack opens in your browser — no email, no form.
What you are accountable for
You bridge existing financial-crime controls and the distinct fraud-prevention question, and you often hold the associated-person and due-diligence evidence the offence relies on.
The worries
- Financial-crime controls exist but are not mapped to the fraud-prevention question
- Associated-person and due-diligence evidence lives across multiple systems
- Showing the overlap and the gaps between frameworks clearly
How the defence file helps
- Map existing financial-crime controls to fraud-prevention procedures
- Hold associated-person attestations and due-diligence evidence in one register
- Keep monitoring and escalation records discoverable
- Surface gaps between frameworks for decision rather than assuming coverage
Evidence to prioritise
A mapping between financial-crime controls and fraud-prevention procedures
Associated-person register with due-diligence and attestation records
Monitoring and escalation trail
Money Laundering Reporting Officer questions
- Isn't our AML framework enough for ECCTA?
- Existing financial-crime frameworks are valuable but the failure-to-prevent-fraud offence is a separate statutory question about fraud committed to benefit the firm. DefenceFile helps you evidence the overlap and the gaps without claiming either is satisfied.
- Who counts as an associated person here?
- Anyone performing services for or on behalf of the firm can be, assessed on the facts — wider than payroll. The platform organises the evidence by relationship so qualified reviewers can classify each one.
- Does this make a regulatory judgement for us?
- No. DefenceFile organises evidence; it does not provide legal advice, decide scope, or certify that controls meet any regime.
For other roles
- Chief Risk OfficerHow CROs own the fraud risk assessment and monitoring for the ECCTA offence and keep the evidence reviewable in a defence file.
- Chief Financial OfficerHow CFOs evidence the finance and procurement controls that matter for the ECCTA failure-to-prevent-fraud offence.
- Head of Internal AuditHow internal audit provides independent assurance over ECCTA fraud-prevention procedures using a reviewable evidence trail.
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.
- Straight answersSourced answers on scope, penalties, 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.