This article considers the potential impact of Section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 on the criminal liability of organisations for the actions of their senior managers.

Published: 17 June 2026
Authors: Rubina Zaidi

Overview

Section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 represents a significant expansion of corporate criminal liability in the UK.

From 29 June 2026, organisations (including companies and partnerships) may be held criminally liable where a senior manager commits any criminal offence when acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority.

This reform replaces the narrower senior manager regime under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and extends corporate liability for senior managers’ criminal actions to a far wider range of criminal offences (save for those not capable of being committed by a corporate entity, for example, murder).

Section 250 makes it easier for prosecutions for corporate criminal liability to be brought as prosecutors will not be required to identify the organisation’s “directing mind and will” to attribute wrongdoing to the organisation. This significantly increases regulatory risk for organisations.

Background: The existing framework

Until the reform, an organisation can only usually be liable for the criminal acts of an individual working for the organisation if prosecutors prove that the offending individual should be regarded as the organisation’s “directing mind and will”. In practice, this means directors and senior executives.

The need to identify the “directing mind” has often been challenging for prosecutors, particularly in relation to organisations with complex structures, where decision-making may overlap or be distributed across layers of management.

The introduction of section 250 will make criminal prosecutions of organisations easier by effectively removing the need to identify the directing mind principle.

The new senior manager test

Under section 250, an organisation may be guilty of committing a criminal offence where:

• a senior manager commits a criminal offence
• the individual is acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority.

The requirement that the individual acts within “actual or apparent authority” does not mean the conduct itself must have been explicitly authorised. It is sufficient that the conduct:

• was of a type the individual was authorised to undertake
• would ordinarily fall within the activities of someone in that role.

This significantly increases the likelihood that wrongdoing will be attributed to the organisation.

Who is a “senior manager”?

The definition of “senior manager” includes any individual who plays a significant role in:

• making decisions about how all or a substantial part of the organisation’s activities are managed or organised
• actually manages or organises all or a substantial part of those activities.

The definition extends well beyond individuals at board-level individuals and may include heads of divisions or of business units, regional managers, and senior functional leads.

Increased risk exposure

Defences under section 250 are narrowly limited. An organisation cannot avoid liability by showing it had reasonable procedures in place and/or it had taken reasonably practicable steps to avoid the offending conduct taking place or based on its due diligence. Nor does it matter that the conduct was not intended to benefit the organisation.

The reform means organisations may face liability arising from senior manager conduct across a wide spectrum of areas.

The reform is therefore expected to increase the risk that organisations will be found criminally liable for offences committed by their senior managers. Scrutiny of organisations’ culture, leadership, and governance will also increase.

Enforcement and penalties

Section 250 expands the basis for liability, but authorities will continue to consider the factors set out in the CPS- SFO Guidance on Corporate Prosecutions when making enforcement decisions such as whether:

• the organisation took a proactive approach to compliance
• the organisation self-reported misconduct
• effective compliance programmes were in place
• the offending was isolated or systemic.

Evidence of robust compliance and governance arrangements remains key to reducing the risk of enforcement.

If convicted, the organisation will face a fine. The maximum fine depends on the offence charged, but for most serious crimes an unlimited fine will be available.

Practical steps for organisations

Organisations should take proactive steps ahead of implementation. Key steps include:

• identifying individuals who may be regarded as senior managers, based on their role and activities rather than title and salary
• assessing areas of the business where senior manager conduct may create a higher risk of criminal or non-compliant activities
• providing targeted training to senior managers, including on the scope of their authority and the potential corporate consequences of misconduct
• reviewing governance arrangements to ensure clear allocation of responsibilities, effective oversight and well-defined reporting lines
• maintaining robust documentation of compliance programmes, training and internal controls.