For corporates trading across the Atlantic, the risk of prosecution for economic crimes is now sharper than ever. With the UK’s Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) expanding attribution rules and introducing the failure to prevent fraud offence, and with the US maintaining an aggressive approach to tax and trade enforcement, companies operating between the two systems are firmly in the prosecutorial spotlight.
The UK’s CPS/SFO corporate prosecutions guidance released in August 2025 and the long-standing UK–US concurrent jurisdiction framework make it clear: prosecutors will coordinate early, share evidence, and decide together whether a case should be run in London, Washington—or both. For corporations, this raises acute compliance questions in high-risk areas like tariff evasion and international tax fraud, where misconduct almost inevitably touches both jurisdictions.
The UK–US Concurrent Jurisdiction Agreement
The Guidance for Handling Criminal Cases with Concurrent Jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and the United States of America sets out the process. Its core principles:
- Early engagement – prosecutors are expected to contact each other as soon as cross-border issues are identified.
- Information sharing – facts, key evidence, and jurisdictional considerations must be exchanged promptly.
- Fair and objective decisions – each case must be assessed on its own merits, with final decisions made at Attorney General level if necessary.
- Strategic consultation – the aim is not just to decide where to prosecute, but how best to structure complementary investigations and outcomes.
This cooperative framework matters because corporate misconduct in global trade often creates liability on both sides of the Atlantic. A UK freight forwarder submitting falsified import declarations may also be committing a federal offence in the US if goods cross through American ports or payments flow via US banks.
Tariff evasion is tax fraud
As is vital for companies to note, tariff evasion is tax evasion. Misdeclaring goods, under-invoicing shipments, or disguising countries of origin to dodge duties is not just a regulatory breach, it is fraud. In the UK, such behaviour could trigger:
- Prosecution under ECCTA section 196 if a senior manager authorises or permits it.
- A failure to prevent fraud charge from September 2025 if an associated freight agent falsifies invoices.
- A failure to prevent tax evasion investigation and possible prosecution as the UK is starting to undertake more aggressively.
In the US, similar conduct falls squarely within federal tax fraud and customs fraud statutes. The Department of Justice and Homeland Security Investigations treat systematic underpayment of tariffs as a priority area, particularly where schemes distort international trade or involve state-linked suppliers.
The concurrent jurisdiction guidance means such cases will not be pursued in isolation. If evidence shows both UK and US exposure, prosecutors will decide which forum is best placed to lead, while ensuring the other jurisdiction has parallel remedies available.
Understanding scenarios: Where your business could go wrong
The under-invoicing freight agent
A UK-based logistics company’s New Jersey office is found altering invoices to declare imported electronics at half their true value to reduce duties.
- UK angle: If approved by a senior manager, ECCTA section 196 could attribute criminal liability directly to the UK parent. A “failure to prevent fraud” prosecution could also be triggered if the freight agent is an associated person.
- US angle: DOJ prosecutors could charge the company with customs fraud and conspiracy to defraud the US government.
- Concurrent handling: Early consultation might result in the US leading on criminal charges, with the UK focusing on parallel enforcement via the SFO and HMRC. A DPA in the UK could still be considered if the company self-reports and cooperates.
The dual-tariff evasion scheme
A British apparel importer routes goods via third countries to disguise their Chinese origin and avoid both UK and US tariffs. Payments are split through a London bank and a Delaware affiliate.
- UK exposure: Misrepresentation to HMRC may be charged as cheating the public revenue or fraud under ECCTA.
- US exposure: False statements to US Customs, plus wire fraud for payments routed through US systems.
- Concurrent jurisdiction: Both sides have a strong case. The UK–US guidance suggests prosecutors will consult to avoid duplication, but parallel indictments are possible if evidence supports a broader conspiracy.
The global freight forwarder collapse
An international freight group collapses after revelations that its managers orchestrated widespread under-invoicing schemes across multiple markets. The company has subsidiaries in London and New York.
- Public interest factors: The new CPS/SFO guidance would weigh heavily against a UK DPA if there is evidence of systemic misconduct, concealment, and failure to remediate.
- Cross-border strategy: Prosecutors may agree a coordinated approach: DOJ leads on criminal charges in the US, the SFO pursues a corporate prosecution in the UK, and joint asset restraint orders prevent dissipation of funds.
DPAs and prosecution decisions
The UK’s updated guidance makes clear that self-reporting and full cooperation remain the only realistic path to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. For companies engaged in transatlantic trade, this means:
- Simultaneous disclosure strategies must be considered—reporting only in London or Washington risks being seen as selective.
- Companies must prepare to provide three years of financial accounts to evidence ability (or inability) to pay.
- Any attempt to conceal misconduct in one jurisdiction will weigh strongly in favour of prosecution in both.
What compliance teams should think about
Reassess due diligence – particularly on freight forwarders, customs brokers, and overseas suppliers. Requests to under-invoice or misdeclare origin must be treated as red flags for fraud.
Strengthen prevention procedures – build fraud risk assessments into trade compliance programmes before 1 September 2025.
Prepare for concurrent investigations – ensure internal investigation playbooks account for UK–US evidence sharing, privilege issues, and disclosure obligations.
Map senior manager accountability – identify where decisions affecting customs declarations, invoices, and tax reporting are actually made.
Plan for multi-agency engagement – be ready to coordinate not just with the SFO or DOJ, but also HMRC, FCA, the US Department of Homeland Security, and international partners.
