UK anti-corruption plan blasted for sidelining fraud

The UK government's new anti-corruption strategy, which expands specialist policing units and allocates GBP £15 million to target criminal networks and money laundering, has drawn a mixed response from financial crime specialists who question whether fraud is being tackled with sufficient urgency.

The plan includes an expansion of the National Crime Agency's Domestic Corruption Unit, tighter vetting for law enforcement and border staff, a crackdown on so‑called professional enablers in the legal and financial sectors, reforms to anti‑money laundering (AML) supervision and a government-led review of asset ownership in the UK.

It also proposes enhanced integrity checks for Border Force and Immigration Enforcement personnel, with individuals linked to criminality barred from border roles from early next year, and signals a review of whistleblowing channels, including possible financial incentives for reporting misconduct.

The strategy is framed as part of a wider effort to close off the UK to illicit finance, following sustained criticism from campaigners and international bodies about the role of UK-based entities and property in global money-laundering schemes.

The government has not yet published its delayed fraud strategy, despite fraud accounting for a high share of reported crime and being a major source of illicit funds.

Specialist officers are expected to take on more investigations and support local forces to disrupt bribery and money laundering across local government, housing and financial services. Ministers also plan a review of the UK's fragmented AML supervisory structure to consolidate supervisory bodies.

A major illicit finance summit is planned for next year, alongside the asset ownership review led by Anti-Corruption Champion Baroness Hodge, which aims to strengthen the tracking of suspicious wealth entering the UK.

Financial crime experts welcomed the focus on systemic corruption risks, but raised concerns over implementation and the separation of corruption and fraud policy.

Fraud focus

Silvija Krupena, Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit at RedCompass Labs, argued that prioritising a corruption plan ahead of a comprehensive fraud strategy risks addressing only part of the problem.

"The government's anti-corruption strategy says it aims to combat illicit funds. Yet it has delayed the fraud strategy, the one that actually tackles the crime producing most of that money. You cannot fight illicit funds while ignoring the crimes that generate them. Fraud is the main source of dirty money in the UK, so publishing a corruption plan first is like drawing up a wildfire response plan without ever mentioning fire."

"Anti-money laundering systems work downstream, but fraud prevention stops the problem upstream. This is how it works in practice. Without tackling the source, enforcement is cosmetic. People are losing their savings every day, and until a proper fraud strategy is in place, it risks sending the message that the real crisis facing households isn't a priority," said Krupena.

Her comments echo ongoing industry concerns that fraud, particularly authorised push payment scams and online account takeovers, is straining both household finances and bank defences, while enforcement outcomes remain limited.

Enforcement record

Jonathan Frost, Director of Global Advisory for EMEA at BioCatch, said the new strategy builds on previous efforts but warned that past failures in fraud enforcement should act as a caution.

"The government's new anti-corruption strategy is the latest move to raise standards, building on the Bribery and Corruption Act that aimed to modernise the UK's approach and set a global example. There is much to commend, but it remains to be seen if good intentions will translate into action. Armed conflict and the rise of autocratic leaders in formerly solid democracies should serve as a warning to everyone. Fraud and corruption often go hand in hand; it is hard to argue that the government has a solid record in enforcing the Fraud Act."

"Fraud is a predictable risk. The GPB £10.9 billion loss from fraud and error during Covid is one such example. The canary was dead long before it reached the coal mine, yet the government continued, ignoring warnings that there were few effective controls to mitigate fraud risk. The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

The reference to GBP £10.9 billion in losses during the pandemic relates to estimates of fraud and error across emergency support schemes, which the National Audit Office and parliamentary committees have heavily scrutinised.

The corruption strategy's emphasis on professional enablers and transparency in asset ownership reflects long-standing pressure from bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force and Transparency International, which have highlighted the risks posed by opaque corporate structures and property holdings.

AML changes

The planned reform of the UK's AML supervisory system, through consolidation of existing supervisors, is expected to affect professional bodies overseeing sectors such as law, accountancy and estate agency. These changes are intended to address concerns about inconsistent standards and potential conflicts of interest in self-regulation.

Authorities hope that strengthened supervision, combined with expanded investigative capacity in the Domestic Corruption Unit, will improve case throughput and deterrence, particularly in complex financial crime involving public bodies and regulated firms.

Specialist officers will also support local forces that often lack the resources and expertise to tackle sophisticated bribery or money-laundering schemes linked to housing, procurement and financial services.

For now, financial crime professionals are watching to see how quickly the corruption plan is translated into operational changes, and when a matching fraud strategy will emerge to address what they view as the primary driver of illicit funds in the UK.