From ‘Almost Impossible’ to ‘Quite Difficult’: Why Banks Still Escape Justice for Economic Crime

By Steve Conley, Academy of Life Planning

Introduction
When it comes to prosecuting banks for economic crime, we are not starting at zero—we’re starting from minus ten.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) was heralded as a turning point in the UK’s ability to hold corporate giants accountable. But as legal experts admit, it merely moves the needle “from almost impossible to quite difficult.”

And that should disturb us all.

Because while individuals are prosecuted for theft, fraud, and misconduct with swift consequence, the most powerful economic actors in our society—banks—have long operated with near impunity. The law has protected them not by intention, perhaps, but by design.

Let’s unpack why that remains the case.

---

The Illusion of Accountability

For years, the legal doctrine known as the “identification principle” tied corporate liability to the “directing mind and will”—typically board-level executives. In sprawling multinationals like Barclays, where decision-making is fragmented and globalised, this created a near-impenetrable shield. Unless top executives personally orchestrated wrongdoing and the board had full knowledge, the company walked free.

Case in point: the Serious Fraud Office’s failed prosecution of Barclays over secret Qatari payments during the 2008 financial crisis. Despite targeting senior figures, including the CEO, the court ruled they lacked full authority to bind the bank. All were acquitted. The institution, too, was untouchable.

---

Enter the ECCTA: A Game Changer?

Section 196 of the ECCTA changes the rules. If a senior manager—defined as someone significantly involved in decision-making or management—commits a relevant offence within the scope of their authority, the company itself can now be prosecuted.

Legal commentators called it a “significant broadening” of liability. In theory, this opens the door to prosecuting firms when crimes are committed by key players lower down the food chain.

But here’s the problem: theory isn’t justice. Practice still favours the powerful.

---

A New Standard, But a Familiar Barrier

Let’s be clear—this isn’t a silver bullet. Prosecutors must still prove:

1. The individual qualifies as a senior manager.
2. Their actions were within the scope of their authority.
3. Their conduct benefited the company.
4. There is admissible evidence that meets the criminal threshold.

And therein lies the challenge. Banks can argue rogue behaviour, limit internal knowledge, suspend implicated staff, and throw up legal fog to avoid accountability. They have the lawyers. The resources. The data. And crucially, the deniability.

As Nick Barnard, white collar crime specialist, bluntly puts it: “The ECCTA only moves the dial from almost impossible to quite difficult.”

---

Meanwhile, Real Lives Hang in the Balance

This is not a debate about technicalities. It’s about lives. Take the Lloyds Banking Group, accused in The Killing Bank report of driving hundreds of vulnerable customers to suicide through aggressive debt collection, negligence, and concealment.

If ever there was a case for corporate manslaughter—this is it. Yet no prosecution. No conviction. Just more settlements, more silence, more death.

The law now allows criminal liability. But does it enable justice?

---

Deferred Prosecution: Justice or Evasion?

We may instead see an uptick in Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs)—private deals where companies avoid conviction by paying fines and promising reforms. They sidestep the courtroom. Evidence is never tested. No one goes to jail.

It’s a compromise that serves efficiency. But what of deterrence? What of the victims?

---

The Cultural Problem: Denial at the Top

Senior managers must now be seen as representatives of the company—but only if there’s an organisational culture that supports accountability. And that’s precisely where the system breaks down.

Too often, as Paul Nash of Nardello & Co observes, blame is deflected downward. Junior staff become scapegoats. Meanwhile, senior managers—those with actual power—escape scrutiny.

Until companies are required to own their mistakes, not hide them behind process, nothing truly changes.

---

The Real Test: Political Will

The SFO now has a clearer legal pathway. But will it be used? Or will banks continue to be insulated by lobbying power, regulatory inertia, and a culture of fear?

Because let’s be honest: a genuine corporate conviction could shatter public trust in the financial system. It’s not just a legal battle. It’s an existential one.

---

Conclusion: Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

The ECCTA is progress. But it’s not enough.

If we want real accountability, we need:

• Courageous prosecutions, not just settlements.
• Coroner-led inquests into bank-linked suicides.
• Criminal manslaughter charges where harm is foreseeable.
• A regulator that regulates, not placates.

Until then, the UK’s largest financial institutions will continue to exploit the gap between what’s legal and what’s just—trading accountability for ambiguity, and lives for profit.

Let’s call time on that.

---

💬 Have you or someone you know been impacted by bank misconduct?
📢 Join the conversation. Demand change.
#JusticeForVictims #BankingReform #ECCTA

---

---

Your Money or Your Life

Unmask the highway robbers – Enjoy wealth in every area of your life!

By Steve Conley. Available on Amazon. Visit www.steve.conley.co.uk to find out more.