Following the publication of the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales, it is tempting to explain the current fraud landscape solely by reference to rising fraud rates. There is certainly evidence to support that narrative. However, for legal practitioners, the more immediate issue is not simply the incidence of fraud itself, but the marked increase in allegations of fraud; particularly in civil and commercial disputes.
These concepts are related, but they are not the same. An increase in underlying fraud will naturally give rise to greater suspicion. That suspicion, in turn, manifests as allegations: in correspondence, in pleadings, and ultimately in litigation. But the growth in allegations is not purely derivative. It reflects its own set of structural and behavioural drivers that warrant separate consideration.
The direction of travel is reflected in recent litigation data, which shows fraud claims making up a steadily larger proportion of civil disputes; up from around 11% in 2023 to 15% in 2025.
A similar pattern is evident in judgments. Fraud-related matters now account for over 11% of judgments, broadly double their share a decade ago, and have consistently remained above 10% since 2020.
The implication is clear: even if the total number of disputes fluctuates, allegations of fraud are becoming more central to how disputes are framed and litigated. This is a qualitative shift, not merely a quantitative one.
Against that background, the increase in fraud itself remains relevant, but it is only part of the picture. The Crime Survey for England and Wales estimates approximately 4.2m incidents of fraud in the year to March 2025, a 31% increase on the previous year.
That growth inevitably feeds into the litigation environment. Greater prevalence increases the likelihood that unusual transactions or losses will be attributed, rightly or wrongly, to fraud. It also raises baseline expectations: parties are more primed to suspect dishonesty where outcomes appear unexplained or adverse.
However, the Solomonic data suggests that litigation behaviour is not simply tracking fraud volumes. The rising share of fraud claims indicates that parties are increasingly willing to characterise disputes in fraud terms, even where alternative causes of action may be available.
Several overlapping factors help explain this shift from fraud to allegations of fraud.
1. Strategic use of fraud in litigation
Fraud allegations carry procedural and tactical advantages. They can unlock powerful tools such as early disclosure, freezing orders and search orders, and can alter limitation positions and settlement dynamics.
As litigants and advisers become more sophisticated, there is a growing willingness to frame claims in fraud, particularly where the high evidential threshold has been met. This contributes to the disproportionate visibility of fraud within the civil courts, relative to underlying incident volumes.
2. Digital behaviour and evidential ambiguity
Modern communication has created an evidential environment in which misunderstanding and suspicion flourish. Transactions are increasingly fragmented and often poorly verified.
The same factors that facilitate fraud: credible digital interfaces, personalised communications, and reduced scrutiny also create fact patterns that can appear suspicious in hindsight. What may once have been characterised as error, miscommunication or breach of contract is now more readily framed as deception.
3. Economic pressure and attribution
Economic strain plays a dual role. It can increase the incidence of dishonest conduct, but it can also increase the propensity to infer dishonesty.
Where losses are felt more acutely, parties are less willing to accept benign explanations. Allegations of fraud become, in some cases, a way of reconciling unexpected financial outcomes or of improving prospects of recovery.
4. Greater awareness and regulatory focus
Fraud now occupies a central position in public and regulatory discourse. It is widely recognised as the most prevalent category of crime in England and Wales, and enforcement and legislative attention has intensified accordingly.
This heightened focus has normalised the language of fraud. Parties are more alert to it, advisers more accustomed to pleading it, and courts more frequently required to adjudicate it. The result is an environment in which fraud allegations arise more readily and are pursued more confidently and this creates an environment that gives rise to confirmation bias.
The Solomonic data captures this interplay particularly well. While fraud incidents have increased materially, the growth of fraud within litigation suggests that behavioural factors are amplifying the trend rather than merely reflecting it.
Ultimately, the most important takeaway is not the incidence of fraud itself, but the growing readiness to allege it. That shift is reshaping civil litigation in subtle but significant ways. Fraud is no longer just a cause of action; it is an increasingly influential lens through which disputes are framed, argued and resolved. Understanding why that shift is happening, and what it means in practice, will be critical for practitioners navigating the next wave of contentious work.
Navinder S Grover and Jamie De Souza are partners with Trowers & Hamlins
3 Readers' comments