Confirmation statement changes

Intended lawful purpose

Didn't find your answer?

From Gov.uk

"Statement to confirm the company is lawful 

All companies will need to confirm that the intended future activities of the company will be lawful.  

You’ll need to confirm this every year on the confirmation statement. You will not be able to file a confirmation statement without this statement. 

This will apply to all confirmation statements with a statement date from 5 March 2024 onwards. "

What is this all about?

What self-respecting crook with nefarious plans would truthfully answer in the negative. Not that it seems that would be possible, because it says that you can't file a CS unless a possitive statement is made.

It seems that if you have unlawful activities in mind you can't honestly file a CS. That would cause CH to strike the company off and the company's assets will be bona vacantia and thsu a de facto fine for being honest about being dishonest.

What am I missing>

 

 

 

Replies (10)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

David Winch
By David Winch
29th Feb 2024 10:41

You might want to be aware of s1112 Companies Act 2006 which includes -
"It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly (a) to deliver or cause to be delivered to the registrar, for any purpose of the Companies Acts, a document, or
(b) to make to the registrar, for any such purpose, a statement, that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular".

Thanks (1)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By FactChecker
29th Feb 2024 15:22

But that's just the 2nd part of Wanderer's dilemma - ("if you have unlawful activities in mind you can't honestly file a CS").

The 1st part (from which this thread flows) is both nonsensical and pointless:
"All companies will need to confirm that the intended future activities of the company will be lawful."
Aside of wondering what birdbrain would tell the authorities that they intend to trade unlawfully (even if the software allowed them to tick that option), it's yet another piece of legislation that is based on the signee's "intention" at the time of signing.
IANAL but that strikes me as a particularly weak (one might say inept) way of indicating an illegal act ... in that it leaves open the obvious defence that it was NOT the intention at the time but then the unexpected happened ...

Thanks (2)
Replying to FactChecker:
David Winch
By David Winch
29th Feb 2024 16:13

An awful lot of financial crime offences (theft for example) have intention (or dishonesty) as a necessary ingredient. State of mind is very important in criminal law. There are exceptions (driving an uninsured car for example) but these are relatively uncommon.
David

Thanks (0)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By FactChecker
29th Feb 2024 17:11

As I said IANAL, but thanks (I had a feeling it was more common than I'd realised as a law-abiding citizen)!

Indeed it makes sense (at the most obvious to delineate between murder and manslaughter), but it still seems pointless to me here.
If the purpose is to be able to add (after detecting some unlawful activity) a charge for the crime of having made a false declaration ... then (except for the most egregious cases) surely the defendant will simply state that "it was NOT my intention at the time but then the unexpected happened .." (which must be hard to disprove).

Basically I have no particular problem with the declaration other than I can't see what it achieves?

Thanks (2)
Replying to FactChecker:
David Winch
By David Winch
29th Feb 2024 17:27

I take your point. It is of course an annual confirmation and if after 12 months the company has no lawful transactions and lots of unlawful ones it may be an easy win to get a conviction. Then if the convicted defendant does it again with another company .....

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
29th Feb 2024 10:44

Baldrick's cunning plan is scuppered

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Wanderer
29th Feb 2024 10:45

It's like the old visa waiver scheme forms:-
Are you a drug dealer?
Are you a terrorist?

Whilst respecting Davids reference, again unlikely a crook will be worried about S1112 Companies Act.

Thanks (1)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
29th Feb 2024 10:47

Because it allows them to stack an easily provable charge on top of any other charges they attempt to file?

Thanks (1)
AS
By AS
29th Feb 2024 10:47

It is like the US Visa application asking if the applicant has been involved in terrorism. How many terrorists have ever ticked this box?

Thanks (1)
David Winch
By David Winch
29th Feb 2024 10:53

There is a long history to this approach. The 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act did not make money laundering illegal - so long as you first get permission from the National Crime Agency to do it.

Thanks (1)