POCA 2002 and ECCTA 2023
The UK has spent more than two decades tightening its grip on economic crime. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) was a major inflection point. It wasn’t just about punishing wrongdoing, but about removing the upside - confiscating criminal benefit, restraining assets early and criminalising the handling of “criminal property” through wide-ranging money-laundering offences.
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) is the next act in that same play. But the emphasis has shifted. Alongside reforms to Companies House and corporate transparency, ECCTA introduces (and has now commenced) a new corporate offence - failure to prevent fraud - that makes fraud risk a governance question, not simply a legal/compliance issue.
What does this “POCA + ECCTA” combination mean in practice for organisations operating in, trading with, or investing into the UK?
POCA: Crime shouldn’t pay
POCA is often discussed in the context of enforcement - confiscation orders, restraint orders, cash seizure and the broader recovery of proceeds. But the day-to-day impact for many organisations sits in POCA’s money-laundering offences.
In simplified terms, POCA criminalises dealing with “criminal property” in three broad ways, including concealing / transforming / transferring it, entering into arrangements that facilitate its acquisition / retention / use / control, and acquiring / using / possessing it - where the person knows or suspects the property represents a benefit from criminal conduct.
Fraud (and many other economic offences) quickly becomes a POCA issue once money or assets move. A business may think it is dealing with “a fraud problem”; enforcement may view the same fact pattern through the lens of “proceeds” and “criminal property”. That shift can change the risk profile - especially where controls, reporting lines or internal escalation are weak.
ECCTA: “Failure to prevent fraud” is now live
ECCTA’s new failure to prevent fraud offence is designed to reduce the gap that historically existed in corporate prosecutions - where proving senior-level intent or knowledge could be a hurdle. Under this offence, a large organisation can be criminally liable where an “associated person” (for example, an employee or agent, and potentially a subsidiary in the relevant context) commits a listed fraud offence intending to benefit the organisation and the organisation did not have reasonable fraud prevention procedures in place.
Key dates and scope
- The offence came into force on 01 September 2025.
- It applies to large organisations only, with the statutory tests set out in ECCTA (and widely summarised in commentary following commencement).
- Government guidance (and an accessible version) sets out principles and practical expectations around “reasonable procedures”.
Practical Implication: After 01 September 2025, organisations within scope should assume that prosecutors will look closely at what the business did before the incident in terms of risk assessment, controls, training, reporting channels and whether the tone from the top was matched by day-to-day behaviour.
Companies House is no longer a passive registry
ECCTA also changes the corporate transparency landscape. The UK’s register has historically been criticised for being too easy to abuse. ECCTA’s reforms aim to make Companies House a more active gatekeeper - strengthening powers to query, reject and remove information, and requiring identity verification for those setting up, running, owning or controlling companies.
Identity verification and the emerging compliance timeline
Companies House published an outline transition plan indicating a phased introduction of identity verification, beginning with new incorporations and rolling into a transition period for existing directors and PSCs.
By late 2025, multiple professional updates reported mandatory identity verification for new directors/PSCs at incorporation and a 12-month transition window for existing directors/PSCs to verify (commonly tied to the confirmation statement cycle).
Separately, the Government’s second progress report flagged further operational milestones; such as identity verification requirements connected to presenters and tighter controls around third-party filing agents; projected into 2026 and beyond.
Practical Implication: If your organisation forms UK entities, acquires UK targets, appoints UK directors, or relies on corporate service providers, Companies House reform is no longer an admin footnote. It affects transaction timetables, onboarding, internal governance, and third-party reliance.
In combination: Proceeds + Prevention + Transparency
POCA is fundamentally about consequences - stripping criminal benefit and criminalising dealings with tainted property. ECCTA is about prevention and visibility - raising corporate accountability for fraud and improving the integrity of the corporate register.
Together, they push organisations towards a more mature posture on economic crime:
- Controls that are demonstrable, not aspirational (especially around sales practices, third-party arrangements and financial reporting).
- Governance that is owned at board level, not left solely to compliance or legal.
- Culture where “how we win work” is as important as “whether we win work”.
Act Today
ECCTA doesn’t replace POCA - it complements it. POCA remains the heavy machinery for recovering criminal benefit and policing the movement of tainted assets. ECCTA modernises the corporate perimeter. It expects organisations (particularly large ones) to prevent fraud proactively and supports that expectation with a more robust transparency regime.
If this article has raised questions about whether your controls, governance and culture are keeping pace with the UK’s economic crime framework, you’re not alone. Culbert Ellis works with organisations to map practical exposure under POCA and ECCTA, identify pressure points in real-world workflows (not just on paper) and set a proportionate plan for strengthening prevention and oversight. Get in touch if you’d like to discuss what this means for your business.
Accurate at the time of writing. This information is provided for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
