Powers of investigators

Investigative authorities

There are number of investigative authorities who have varying powers under which they can carry out raids, conduct searches and seizure of property and require individuals to attend interviews or to provide information or documentation as part of their investigation. These authorities often have memorandums of understanding in place to ensure they can work together when investigating criminal offences (see Practice Note: Memorandum of understanding—criminal investigations and prosecutions).

For a quick guide to the relevant authorities and the scope of their powers, see Practice Note: Dawn raid—table of relevant authorities and the scope of their powers.

Below are some useful links to Practice Notes which provide information and guidance on how to deal with the individual authorities, in particular what to do when they come knocking at dawn, and setting out their relevant investigative powers.

Police

•
Dealing with dawn raids by the police—key information

National Crime Agency

•
Dealing with the National Crime Agency

Serious Fraud Office

•
Dealing with the SFO collection
•
Dealing with dawn raids by the Serious Fraud Office—key information
•
Interviews under the Criminal Justice Act 1987, s 2

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Corporate Crime News

CPS secures sentences in largest UK cryptocurrency money laundering case

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has announced that two defendants were sentenced at Southwark Crown Court for money laundering connected to a £600m Chinese cryptocurrency investment fraud. Zhimin Qian received a sentence of 11 years and eight months after pleading guilty to charges of possessing criminal cryptocurrency and money laundering, while Senghok Ling was sentenced to four years and 11 months for possessing criminal cryptocurrency. The case represents the largest cryptocurrency seizure in UK history, involving more than 60,000 Bitcoin and other assets currently valued at £4.8bn, which remain subject to confiscation proceedings.

SRA publishes statement on HMT decision to transfer AML supervision to FCA

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has published a statement in response to HM Treasury (HMT)'s decision to designate the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the single professional services supervisor for anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing. The decision follows HMT’s 2023 consultation on reforms to the AML supervision regime and will result in 22 private sector professional bodies, including the SRA, no longer conducting AML supervisory functions. HMT has now launched a consultation on proposals setting out the key duties, powers and accountability mechanisms that the FCA will require in its new role. The SRA stated that it will work with the FCA, government and stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements, while continuing to fulfil its current AML supervision responsibilities during the interim period.

Supreme Court dismisses appeals but urges Scottish courts to modify approach to admissibility in sexual offences trials—Daly v HM Advocate, Keir v HM Advocate

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed appeals brought by two appellants convicted of rape and other sexual offences, challenging the exclusion of evidence that might have assisted their defences. The key issue was whether the Scottish courts’ approach to the admission of evidence concerning the complainer’s credibility or reliability in trials for sexual offences was liable to infringe the defendant’s rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Supreme Court found that the Scottish courts should modify their approach to the admission of evidence in such cases as it was liable to result in violations of the rights of the accused under Article 6 ECHR. However, on the facts, the Supreme Court found that no such violation had occurred in this case and both appellants had received a fair trial, hence the appeals were dismissed. Lord Reed gave the judgment with which the other members of the court agreed. The Lexis+® UK Public Law team comments on the judgment.

Ministry of Justice announces measures to reduce prison release errors

The Ministry of Justice has announced new measures to address prison release errors, including a £10m investment over six months in AI-powered tools to assist frontline staff with sentence calculations and system upgrades. The Deputy Prime Minister will chair a new monthly Justice Performance Board to oversee prison and court performance, while a fast-track courts hotline will enable prison staff to verify outstanding warrants before releases. The measures include expanding Dame Lynne Owen's independent review with a dedicated data team to examine historic cases, simplifying prisoner release policy to standardise case treatment, and requiring court staff to confirm orders verbally with judges before finalisation. Late requests for changes must be sent directly to relevant prisons. The announcement follows publication of data showing 91 releases in error occurred from April 2025 to October 2025. Dame Lynne Owen's expanded review is expected to report in February 2026.

View Corporate Crime by content type :

News