Fraud is the scourge of our age. Before long, it may amount to half the crime in England and Wales. And yet deterrence is almost non-existent, Jonathan Fisher KC observes in his monumental report this week. Only one reported fraud in 100 is resolved through the criminal justice system. ‘Even those who have never before contemplated breaking the law,’ he says, ‘may be tempted when the prospect of detection and punishment is remote.’
Fisher, a leading barrister specialising in financial crime and visiting professor at the London School of Economics, was asked by the Home Office to complete an independent review of disclosure and fraud offences by the end of last year. He met the deadline and his 280-page report Fraud in the Digital Age is dated December 2025.
Why then did the government wait until two days before parliament’s summer recess before publishing it? Surely not because Fisher comes down so heavily against David Lammy’s plans for judge-only trials in serious fraud cases?
‘Experience shows juries cope when cases are properly managed and presented,’ Fisher writes. In his opinion, keeping juries for serious offences other than fraud ‘would devalue the importance of fraudulent misconduct and reinforce the historic ambivalence towards fraud as a civil matter rather than a serious public wrong’. In view of its seriousness, he recommends that the maximum prison sentence of 10 years in the Fraud Act 2006 should be doubled – something else that the Ministry of Justice must find unhelpful.
‘Fraud is not new,’ Fisher said this week. ‘What has changed is the new context of the digital age, which is baffling policymakers, investigators, prosecutors and enforcers… The UK needs to recalibrate its approach to fraud by treating it as a national security and economic priority rather than a low-level financial crime.’
The six-month delay in publishing Fisher’s report is not just a sign of government indifference to the problems he identifies so starkly. It has deprived victims of his warnings about romance fraud, ‘a particularly insidious form of deception, exploiting emotional vulnerability for financial gain’; about AI-enabled fraud, ‘a significant evolution in the threat landscape’; about identity theft, ‘the unauthorised appropriation of something deeply personal, the essence of who a person is’; and about deed poll abuse, ‘changing one’s name with the intent to commit a fraud’.
People whose identities have been appropriated are not currently recognised as victims of fraud unless they lose money. Fisher recommends a new summary-only offence of identity-based impersonation so that this violation of personal autonomy can be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
Deed poll abuse would also be criminalised, as would ‘money muling’ – transferring or receiving criminal proceeds for others through the mule’s personal bank account. Low-level money laundering should be targeted through what Fisher calls a multi-pronged enforcement model, allowing law enforcement to issue warnings, impose civil penalties or prosecute under the new summary-only offence.
Individuals need protection and support: Fisher thinks whistleblowers should be rewarded for passing on information and victims need to be told they can participate in confiscation proceedings.
Although he regards the existing legislative framework as broadly sound, he says enforcement has been fragmented and sluggish. Incremental adjustments will not be enough to tackle the huge growth in online fraud and the sophistication of AI fraudsters, he says.
The Serious Fraud Office, which investigates and prosecutes the most serious financial crimes, should be given the same information-sharing powers as the National Crime Agency. The offence of failing to prevent fraud should be extended to online platforms. Law enforcement bodies should issue civil fines to individuals who buy fraud-enabling products online.
Responding on behalf of the government, a Home Office minister took advantage of the delay in publishing Fisher’s report by setting out everything the government had done in the meantime. Lord Hanson of Flint said the government was ‘strengthening the tools available to disrupt fraud earlier and at scale, including through the exploration of civil penalties and international sanctions against high-harm overseas fraud actors’.
The government was also expanding international cooperation, making tech companies responsible for blocking fraudulent content and deepening public-private partnerships. Ministers were working to improve the sharing of economic crime data and would consider incentivising whistleblowing.
Beyond that, it was all too difficult: ‘The report’s recommendations cut across the responsibilities of multiple departments, agencies and sectors,’ Hanson observed. ‘The government will now consider them carefully and will respond in due course.’
Fisher’s recommendations are designed to restore credible deterrence, protect victims and safeguard the integrity of the UK economy. ‘The stakes could not be higher, he concludes. ‘If the government fails to act decisively, it will sleepwalk into a future where fraud becomes endemic – eroding public trust, undermining autonomy and prosperity, and compromising the rule of law.’
Let’s see if Andy Burnham treats this as a wake-up call.
joshua@rozenberg.net
No comments yet