Juries can cope with complex trials, says fraud review

Retaining jury trials for fraud cases and allowing the Serious Fraud Office to pay whistleblowers are among recommendations put forward by Jonathan Fisher KC in his independent review of disclosure and fraud offences.

The review, comissioned by the home secretary, was expected to be published in December 2025. This was moved to May before finally being published this week - days before the House of Commons' summer recess.

Fraud in the Digital Age - which states ‘fraud has historically been treated with indifference' - makes 47 recommendations to fill what Fisher describes as a 'massive justice gap'. 

Arguing for the retention of jury trials for complex cases, Fisher states that ‘experience shows juries cope when cases are properly managed and presented’.

Under the government's Courts and Tribunals Bill, 'technical and lengthy fraud cases' could be heard by a judge alone. However in his report Fisher states: ‘The retention of jury trial for the most serious offences in the criminal lexicon but not for 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. This would be the wrong message for parliament to send.’

On payments to whistleblowers, the report recommends that government should conslt on the design of a suitable scheme. The SFO is 'best placed' to decide how the size of the reward is detemined, Fisher suggests, and ‘careful consideration is given to the type of individual that will be deemed eligible'. 

Safeguards would include a new criminal offence for individuals who knowingly make false reports under a whistleblower incentivisation scheme, as well as for those who harass or intimidate whistleblowers.

The SFO welcomed the recommendations on whistleblower incentives and disclosure reform.

Fisher's report also suggests amending the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (1996) and its codes ‘to reflect the digital age; introducing an intensive disclosure regime for the most complex cases, with early judicial case management; mandating a technology-first approach, including AI-assisted review under national standards; embedding a culture shift through mandatory training for investigators, prosecutors and judges; and strengthening accountability through enhanced oversight and sanctions for disclosure failings’.

It added: ‘Collectively, these measures will move the dial and bring the disclosure regime into the modern era.’

Considering sentencing, Fisher described the maximum sentence for fraud and money laundering as ‘deeply unsatisfactory’ and recommended the sentencing framework be updated to a 20-year maxium. Current maximum sentences 'have failed to keep pace with other crime types and no longer reflect an offender’s ability to steal significant sums of money and inflict untold misery on thousands of victims'.

Raising the maximum sentence ensures a proportionate punishment and sends 'a clear signal that such serious criminality will not be treated lightly'. 

Louise Hodges, partner in Kingsley Napley’s criminal litigation team, who described the review as not pulling its punches, said the recommendation would mark a ‘significant change’. She added: ‘The current 10-year maximum for fraud has long sat uncomfortably below the 14-year maximum for money laundering – although whether it has undermined the deterrent effect is difficult to determine.'

Fisher also recommends that deferred prosecution agreements be 'injected into the criminal justice system'. 

However Lloyd Firth, partner at WilmerHale, said to introduce deferred prosecution agreements for individuals 'would be fraught with legal, practical and political difficulty to implement'.

Other recommendations include ‘enhancing’ judicial training to address ‘the unique challenges of digital-heavy trials and the emerging threat of AI-enabled fraud’. 

Law Society president Mark Evans said: ‘Using AI to support the disclosure process could help ensure cases are dealt with fairly and efficiently. But consultation with legal professionals, as well as the public, will be key to success. We agree that AI must be used with appropriate human oversight and robust safeguards to ensure fairness and transparency.'