Globalisation of capital markets has led to globalisation of fraud, and with it, or chasing its tails, fraud practitioners and avoidance authorities.

Fraud is one practice area where the UK remains isolated among other EU states in its approach.Traditionally, in the EU a freezing order on assets - which is the opening gambit in most actions for suspected fraud - is achieved through a criminal investigation presided over by magistrates.In the UK, a civil action is the first move, with the claimant seeking a freezing order on the assets.

A criminal action may then follow.Edward Sparrow, head of litigation at City firm Ashurst Morris Crisp, is a general litigator who has dealt with an even spread of fraud claims.

Ashursts acted for the Libyan State Oil Company's agent Sirte in various asset tracing and freezing matters, the liquidators of Barings Singapore in relation to fraud claims, and for the first defendant in the celebrated Grupo Torras affair.

'Grupo Torras - which finished about 18 months ago - truly opened up the borders of asset tracing available to claimants in English courts,' says Mr Sparrow.Andrew Keltie, a fraud dispute resolution partner with fellow city-based firm Baker & McKenzie who acted on behalf of Spanish company Grupo Torras, explains what headway has been made in this case, which involved the alleged theft of £450 million by directors of the company - formerly Spain's biggest employer.After freezing assets in London, Baker & McKenzie moved in to unravel dealings which led to the identification of allegedly stolen funds in Jersey, Bahamas, the Turks & Caicos Islands and Singapore.Apart from strengthening the opportunities for the use of freezing orders within some of these offshore centres, the Grupo Torras case also made headway into trusts law.Mr Keltie explains that one of the defendants in the action disclosed that he had several interests as a beneficiary in discretionary trusts.

The firm obtained evidence suggesting these trust accounts were being used as personal bank accounts, in the nominal control of the trustees.

Obtaining judgment against the accounts was a 'novel application of well-recognised principles', says Mr Keltie.In the context of the pressure being exerted on offshore centres by the new blacklist issued this summer by the Organisation for Economic Development - which included many offshore centres on it - these advancements herald an 'increasing power of the nuclear armoury of claimants against suspected fraudsters', claims Mr Sparrow.If the English law develops a constructive trust - as Mr Keltie hopes it might through Grupo Torras - this would have wider ramifications for what Mr Keltie describes as the 'asset protection industry'.

The case's ongoing enforcement process is leading Baker & McKenzie to attack trusts in other ways: attempting to force discretionary trustees to make payments to creditors when their beneficiaries become bankrupt.

This case is emblematic of a world in which fraud is now a global business.It is against the background of these changes to the global market that the Fraud Advisory Panel - a voluntary body - is beginning to get serious about its role in the UK.Panel chairman George Staple QC, former Serious Fraud Office chief, Law Society Council member, and now a partner at Clifford Chance, says the panel was formed in response to the recommendations of Lord Roskill's Report of the Fraud Trials Committee, which were published in 1986.The report then stated that the 'fragmentation of the present system' made it essential to have 'an independent monitoring system' for fraud.The Roskill report predated the setting up of the Serious Fraud Office, with its investigatory and prosecuting role, but no government has taken the Roskill report's recommendations seriously enough actually to implement them.

And Mr Staple says that - in the absence of such a body - the panel is increasingly necessary to carry out a watchdog function of the market.The membership of the panel - which exists largely thanks to the sponsorship of the Institute of Chartered Accountants - reflects a broad professional base: barristers, solicitors and accountants are all members, so any decision to formalise the Roskill recommendations would find in the panel a body already close to the requirements.At its annual meeting recently, the panel formalised its membership and began taking subscriptions for the first time; it is also set to increase its profile.

'Fraud is not going to go away,' says Mr Staple, adding: 'If anything, it's going to get worse.'A study for the Home Office conducted recently by the National Economic Research Associates, showed that of last year's total loss of £35 million in Britain through crime, one-third resulted from fraud.The one thing that causes Mr Staple serious concern, is that 'fraud and economic crime in general is not among the government's priorities'.

The City of London police is the only force which prioritises fraud, according to Mr Staple.

One area where even the professions need to be on their guard is money laundering, Mr Staple says.

The panel has put plans in place to raise awareness in the professions and the public at large about the dangers of being used as a conduit by money launderers.

'It is important to keep up-to-date in combating crime, says Mr Staple.'Prioritising fraud is now more essential, according to Mr Staple, to make full use of new European legislation - such as the Mutual Assistance Convention - which provides for requests for information made between the authorities of the different member states to be heeded much more quickly.The same convention will also allow witnesses to give evidence in another member state using video conferencing.Another big move to rationalisation of European fraud law was achieved in the EU conference in Tampere, Finland, last year.

It heralded the introduction of Eurojust, a scheme that encourages EU member states' methods of gathering evidence and criminal procedure to converge.Peter Binning is a partner with specialist London-based firm Peters & Peters, working on criminal charges and regulatory matters.

Peters & Peters has a rich pedigree in the field, having defended Kevin Maxwell and Silvio Berlusconi, the former prime minister accused of corruption in Italy, in the past.Peters & Peters is also one of 69 law firms named in June on the Legal Services Commission's se rious fraud panel; however, it will not be until 2002 that legal aid cases involving serious fraud charges will only be allocated to firms on the panel.

But from last month other firms doing such cases will have to notify the commission, which will decide whether to contract with them.The introduction last year of the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to expand UK jurisdiction is yet to make its mark, said Mr Binning, though in time it will make a big difference.

The provision broadly makes it easier for prosecutions to be brought in the UK relating to alleged crimes abroad.Before its introduction, for example, a suspected criminal in London conspiring to rob a bank in Rome would be prosecuted only if that conspiracy were an 'essential element' of the crime.Although European law is now following fraud suspects over national borders, Mr Binning says there is still a problem - even within Europe - with mutual recognition of fraud.

He explains: 'There is no uniform criminal code.

In some European countries, crimes can be prosecuted which are not recognised in others.'Mr Binning is acting for a client whose extradition to Italy has been requested on charges of robbing a bank in Austria.

This is an important issue, because in England the client cannot be prosecuted; unlike in Italy where the law's extraterritoriality enables a prosecution to be brought even though the crime of which he is accused was committed in Austria.Undoubtedly this hurdle, and others like it, have made Britain a regime where the law has put the burden more squarely on the prosecution's shoulders.The current moves to iron out the differences between the UK's approach and, that on the continent, could see a few limousines creeping towards the airports, with cat-carrying owners peering from designer shades at their first-class air tickets to exotic locations, where the weather - and the law - is more accommodating.