The new flexible working changes came into force on 6 April 2024 when the Employment Relations...
- Basildon 01268244144
- Chelmsford 01245453800
- Colchester 01206217300
- London 020 4586 1280
Search site
Call our office
Make an enquiry
Our people
Search our people
Director’s Disqualification – The Criminal Law Regime
It is a well-established legal principle that a company is a distinct and separate ‘person’ from its officers. With this in mind, it does not necessarily mean that directors are ‘guilty’ of a crime just because the company has attracted any such criminal liability. However, a company may be fixed with criminal liability through the acts or omissions of its directors and the way for criminal liability to be proved may be by identifying the criminal acts of one of its officers.
It should be made clear that the liability of a company for an offence does not prevent an individual employee from liability. For any person to be successfully prosecuted, the prosecution must first be able to prove that the company is in fact guilty of an offence.
The courts have given the following clarification of such terminology where individuals may potentially be held liable:
There are many corporate offences which are strict liability offences. A strict liability offence requires no intention to commit the criminal act on the part of the offender and is committed irrespective of whether the person committing the offence is at fault.
Investigations into corporate wrongdoing can be conducted both internally by the company or on their behalf by appointed professionals as well as externally through interview under caution. In the event of the latter, the regulatory authorities should ask the company to nominate a person to partake in the formal interview process to answer questions on its behalf.
There should never be one interview only where the individual concerned is asked to answer questions both on his/her behalf and on behalf of the company – it would be impossible to identify which answers are legally admissible against each.
A director of a limited company can be disqualified following a criminal conviction. However, the rules vary depending on whether a director is convicted of an indictable offence or following three default orders or convictions for summary offences within the preceding five years.
Further, it is not a requirement that the offence took place within the company; the offence may relate to the defendant's role within the company. The offence need not concern misconduct of the company's affairs or dishonesty. Moreover, the defendant does not have to have been a director at the time of the offence or at the sentencing hearing, nor does the defendant have to be a ‘shadow director’.
A directors disqualification order (DDO) disqualifies a person from operating with limited liability. It is used as a penalty in addition to the offence, the purpose of which is to protect the public from those who, for reasons of dishonesty, naivety or incompetence, abuse their role and status as director and may jeopardise creditors and others associated with the business of that director.
The effect of a DDO is that the relevant person subject to the Order must not:
The use of a DDO is invariably intended to ensure that only reasonably competent, responsible and honest people act as company directors.
Whilst the courts have suggested that a DDO is not a punishment, the decision about the length of the period of disqualification does not differ from any other sentencing exercise. Therefore, the period of disqualification must reflect the gravity of the offence and equally act as a deterrent.
Breach of a DDO, or an undertaking, is a criminal offence. During the term of the DDO the disqualified defendant may apply to the court for leave to act in specific circumstances. Breach of a DDO is, either-way an offence, and can be tried/heard before either the Magistrates’ or Crown Court:
The Sentencing Council has published a guideline for the offence of ‘Breach of disqualification from acting as a director’, effective from 1 October 2018, which sets out the factors the Sentencing Court must consider before passing any sentence. The court will look at ‘culpability’ and ‘harm’ before going on to consider aggravating and mitigating features.
When a person acts as a director of a company whilst disqualified, he becomes personally responsible for all the debts and liabilities of the company incurred during the time when he was involved in the management of the company.
Likewise, a person not being the disqualified director who is involved in the management of the company and who acts on instructions given by a person whom he knows to be subject to a disqualification order or undertaking, also assumes personal liability for the debts or liabilities of the company occurred at that time.
To find out more about how we can work with you, please contact Tej Thakkar. Tej is based in our Colchester office and can be contacted on 01206 217312.