Sophie Tang

Associate, Kingsley Napley

Sophie Tang is an associate in the criminal litigation team at Kingsley Napley. She joined Kingsley Napley in 2024, after working as a Senior Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service and an Associate at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

Sophie acts on a wide range of white collar and general crime cases. She acts for suspects and witnesses in respect of investigations into fraud, bribery and corruption and cartels. She advises both corporates and individuals in internal investigations, regulatory investigations (brought by the SFO, CMA and CPS) and litigation. Sophie has a particular interest in the international dimension of criminal cases and has advised on multijurisdictional investigations and litigation.

Sophie advises on all areas of general crime. She has particular expertise in defending suspects and defendants accused of rape and serious sexual offences, having prosecuted in the CPS’s specialist RASSO unit. Sophie used to frequently appear as prosecuting advocate in Magistrates’ Court trials and is therefore well placed to advise on matters of criminal procedure, evidence and advocacy.

Contributed to

3

Issues of privilege in cross-border criminal investigations

Practice Notes

This Practice Note explains the issues relating to legal professional privilege which arise in cross-border criminal investigations and the practical steps which should be taken to protect legal professional privilege in multi-jurisdictional criminal investigations.

Corporate Crime

Legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings

Practice Notes

This Practice Note explains how the principles of legal professional privilege (LPP) apply in a criminal context. It explains the different categories of legal professional privilege, legal advice privilege and litigation privilege, and how these key concepts apply in criminal investigations and proceedings. This Practice Note also considers the impact of the decisions in SFO v ENRC, HSE v Jukes and R (on the application of Jet2.Com Ltd) v CAA on the dominant purpose test in litigation privilege and legal advice privilege and what constitutes ‘reasonable prospect of litigation’ in litigation privilege in criminal investigations. It also considers the difference in the protections afforded by legal advice privilege as opposed to litigation privilege in criminal proceedings.

Corporate Crime

Legal professional privilege—the crime-fraud exception

Practice Notes

This Practice Note explains the scope and impact of the crime-fraud exception (iniquity exception) to legal professional privilege (LPP) and explains where this might be relevant during corporate crime investigations. It explains what constitutes a ‘criminal purpose’ and ‘iniquity’ in these circumstances and the application of the crime-fraud exception to both legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. It also covers the 'dominant purpose test' and the iniquity exception, and explains how the exception could arise in a criminal investigation as well as covert powers and the iniquity exception.

Corporate Crime