Facing a fraud allegation? Disclosure could prove critical to your defence
Fraud investigations can generate enormous volumes of material. Investigators may obtain banking records, company accounts, emails, messages, mobile phone downloads, computer files, accounting data and documents held by third parties.
Only part of that material may be used as evidence in the prosecution case. The remainder must still be handled properly. If unused material is capable of weakening the prosecution case or assisting the defence, it may have to be disclosed. This process is known as disclosure. In a serious fraud prosecution, it can become one of the most important and contested aspects of the case.
At Olliers, our specialist fraud defence solicitors examine not only the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, but also what may be missing, overlooked, inaccurately scheduled or inadequately searched.
What is disclosure in a fraud case?
Disclosure is the legal process through which material obtained during a criminal investigation is reviewed, recorded and, where the relevant test is met, provided to the defence.
The disclosure regime in England and Wales is principally governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, commonly known as the CPIA, together with its Code of Practice, the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure.
The prosecution must disclose material that might reasonably be considered capable of:
- undermining the prosecution case; or
- assisting the case for the accused.
Disclosure does not simply concern evidence that proves innocence. Material may meet the disclosure test if it casts doubt on a prosecution witness, provides important context, supports an alternative explanation, reveals an inconsistent account or identifies a reasonable line of enquiry that has not been properly pursued.
The obligation to consider disclosure continues throughout the proceedings. A disclosure decision may therefore need to be revisited as the issues in the case develop.
Why is disclosure particularly important in fraud cases?
Fraud cases are frequently document-heavy and may involve material obtained from several individuals, businesses, financial institutions and digital devices.
Investigators may gather:
- bank statements and transaction records;
- company accounts and management information;
- contracts, invoices and purchase orders;
- internal and external emails;
- WhatsApp messages and text messages;
- mobile phone and computer downloads;
- accounting schedules and financial analyses;
- audit files and compliance records;
- telephone and communications data;
- search material and interview records; and
- material held by banks, accountants, employers or other third parties.
The prosecution may rely on a comparatively small selection of this evidence to support its interpretation of events. Other material might provide context, reveal a legitimate commercial explanation or undermine an allegation of dishonesty.
This is why defence lawyers should not confine their analysis to the documents selected for use by the prosecution. The wider evidential picture may be equally important.
What is unused material?
Unused material is material obtained during an investigation that the prosecution does not intend to rely upon as part of its case.
It could include:
- witness statements that are not served as prosecution evidence;
- emails or messages not included in the prosecution bundle;
- draft documents and earlier versions of records;
- financial material that does not support the prosecution analysis;
- information relating to alternative suspects or explanations;
- records of investigative decisions;
- material generated by abandoned lines of enquiry; and
- evidence that points away from guilt.
Unused material is not automatically disclosed in its entirety. It should be recorded and reviewed so that material meeting the disclosure test can be identified. In a complex fraud case, careful scrutiny of the unused-material schedules and the prosecution’s disclosure methodology can be essential.
What is a disclosure schedule?
A disclosure schedule records unused material obtained during the investigation. Depending on the nature of the material, separate arrangements may apply to non-sensitive and sensitive material.
Descriptions on a schedule should be sufficiently clear to allow informed disclosure decisions to be made. Generic or vague entries can make it difficult for the defence, the prosecutor and the court to understand what material exists and why it may be relevant.
Where a schedule appears inadequate, the defence may seek clarification, make targeted disclosure requests or invite the prosecution to reconsider particular categories of material.
How should digital evidence be handled?
Digital disclosure is particularly important in modern fraud investigations. A single phone, mailbox, server or cloud account may contain a very large quantity of data.
The key issue is not always whether every item has been read individually. It may be whether investigators and prosecutors have adopted a reasonable, properly recorded and issue-focused strategy for identifying potentially relevant material.
Depending on the case, the defence may need to consider:
- the devices and accounts that were examined;
- the date ranges used;
- keywords and search terms;
- whether linked documents and attachments were reviewed;
- whether relevant data was excluded or filtered out;
- the treatment of encrypted or inaccessible material;
- duplicate material and email chains; and
- the preservation and integrity of the underlying data.
This makes early defence engagement important. A focused request explaining why a particular category, custodian, account, search term or date range matters is more likely to advance the case than a general demand for every item obtained during the investigation.
What is a Disclosure Management Document?
In large or complex cases, the prosecution may provide a Disclosure Management Document, often referred to as a DMD.
A DMD can explain matters such as:
- the scale and nature of the material;
- how the disclosure exercise has been approached;
- the digital review strategy;
- search terms and date parameters;
- the treatment of particular categories of material; and
- decisions made about potentially relevant material.
The document may evolve as the case develops. It should be considered carefully rather than treated as an administrative formality.
How does the Defence Statement affect disclosure?
In Crown Court proceedings, the defence will ordinarily be required to serve a Defence Statement setting out the nature of the defence and identifying the issues in dispute.
A carefully prepared Defence Statement can play a central role in disclosure. By explaining the factual and legal issues clearly, it may help identify unused material capable of assisting the defence or undermining the prosecution.
In a fraud case, a Defence Statement might identify:
- the commercial context of a transaction;
- the defendant’s role and actual responsibilities;
- an absence of knowledge or dishonesty;
- reliance on information supplied by others;
- alternative explanations for financial movements;
- disputed accounting assumptions;
- relevant communications or missing records; and
- further enquiries or categories of material requiring review.
A Defence Statement should not be treated as a routine summary. It is an important strategic document that should be drafted with close attention to the evidence, disclosure position and likely trial issues.
Can the defence apply to the court for further disclosure?
If the defence believes that the prosecution has material meeting the disclosure test but it has not been disclosed, it may be possible to make an application to the court under section 8 of the CPIA 1996. Before doing so, the defence will usually need to identify the material or category of material sought and explain why it may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence.
A focused application should connect the request to a genuine issue in the case. Disclosure is not ordinarily a right to inspect everything gathered by investigators without explaining its potential relevance.
What happens when disclosure is inadequate?
Disclosure problems may arise where:
- material has not been properly recorded;
- unused-material schedules contain inadequate descriptions;
- a suitable digital search strategy has not been adopted;
- relevant search terms, devices or accounts have been omitted;
- potentially important third-party material has not been pursued;
- the prosecution has applied the disclosure test incorrectly; or
- disclosure obligations have not been revisited as the case has developed.
The appropriate response depends on the circumstances. It may include correspondence with the prosecutor, requests for clarification, representations at a case management hearing or a formal application for further disclosure.
Serious disclosure failings can affect the fairness and progress of a prosecution. However, the legal outcome will depend upon the nature of the failure, its significance and whether it can be remedied.
Is all third-party material disclosed?
No. Relevant material may be held by organisations or individuals who are not part of the prosecution, including banks, accountants, employers, insolvency practitioners, regulators and government bodies.
The prosecution is not necessarily treated as possessing every document held by every outside organisation. However, investigators and prosecutors may need to consider reasonable lines of enquiry and the relevance of material held by third parties. The defence can assist by identifying the material sought, who may hold it and why it is capable of affecting an issue in the case.
How Olliers approaches disclosure in fraud cases
At Olliers, we understand that the documents selected by the prosecution may tell only part of the story.
Our fraud lawyers take a methodical and strategic approach to disclosure. Depending on the case, this may involve:
- analysing the prosecution case and identifying evidential gaps;
- reviewing unused-material schedules and disclosure documentation;
- scrutinising digital search and review methodologies;
- identifying relevant categories of financial, corporate and communications material;
- preparing targeted disclosure requests;
- challenging inadequate descriptions or disclosure decisions;
- drafting detailed Defence Statements;
- making representations to prosecutors; and
- pursuing appropriate applications before the court.
Disclosure is not considered in isolation. It must be integrated with the wider defence strategy, including expert evidence, witness preparation, plea decisions, case management and trial preparation.
Where we are instructed during the investigation stage, we also provide proactive pre-charge representation aimed at addressing evidential and factual issues before a charging decision is made.
The prosecution does not have to disclose every item obtained during a fraud investigation. However, under the disclosure regime, it must consider unused prosecution material and disclose material that meets the statutory test, broadly, material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the case for the accused.
In a complex fraud case, this can be particularly important because investigators may have obtained substantial volumes of banking records, company documents, emails, messages and digital material. Only a proportion may ultimately be relied upon by the prosecution.
The defence should therefore consider not only the evidence being used to prove the allegations, but also whether other material exists that could provide context, support an innocent explanation, challenge an allegation of dishonesty or otherwise assist the defence.
Disclosure is also a continuing process. It should be kept under review as the issues in the case develop.
No. There is no general requirement for the prosecution simply to hand the defence everything gathered during an investigation.
Material relied upon by the prosecution will form part of its case. Other material obtained during the investigation is generally treated as unused material and must be dealt with under the disclosure regime.
This distinction can be particularly significant in fraud proceedings. Investigators may have examined years of financial information, thousands of emails or messages and data from numerous digital devices, while relying upon a comparatively small selection to support the prosecution case.
The fact that something is unused does not mean that it is irrelevant or unhelpful to the defence. The defence may need to consider whether undisclosed material could undermine the prosecution’s interpretation of events, provide important context or assist the defendant’s case.
Unused material is material obtained during a criminal investigation that the prosecution does not intend to rely upon as evidence in its case.
In a fraud investigation, it might include emails, WhatsApp messages, bank records, company documents, draft documents, accounting information, witness material, digital data or information generated through lines of enquiry that did not ultimately form part of the prosecution case.
Unused material can sometimes be extremely important. For example, a particular communication may provide context to a transaction that appears suspicious when viewed in isolation. Financial records may support a legitimate explanation for the movement of money. Other material might undermine the reliability of a prosecution witness or the assumptions underpinning a financial analysis.
For that reason, the review of unused material and associated disclosure schedules can be an important part of preparing the defence in a serious fraud prosecution.
A disclosure schedule records unused material identified during a criminal investigation. It allows the prosecution and defence to understand what unused material exists and assists with decisions about whether particular material meets the disclosure test.
In substantial fraud investigations, disclosure schedules can be extensive because investigators may have obtained material from numerous individuals, businesses, bank accounts and electronic devices.
The way material is described can matter. If descriptions are vague or insufficient to identify the nature of an item, it may be difficult to assess whether it could have relevance to an issue in dispute.
An experienced fraud defence solicitor will therefore consider not only what has actually been disclosed, but the schedules and other disclosure documentation. Where potentially significant material is identified, the defence can consider whether further information or disclosure should be sought.
Late disclosure does not automatically bring a prosecution to an end, but its consequences can be significant, particularly where the material affects an important issue in the defence case.
The appropriate response will depend on what has been disclosed, why it was disclosed late, the stage the case has reached and whether the defence has sufficient opportunity to consider and respond to it.
For example, newly disclosed material could require further investigation by the defence, additional instructions from the defendant, consideration by an expert or changes to trial preparation.
In a serious fraud prosecution involving large quantities of financial or digital evidence, late disclosure can be particularly disruptive. The defence should assess the significance of the new material promptly and consider what representations, case management steps or applications are appropriate in the circumstances.
The consequences depend upon what material has not been disclosed and whether the failure has affected the fairness of the proceedings.
Disclosure issues can arise for different reasons. Material may not have been properly recorded or reviewed, a disclosure decision may be challenged, digital searches may not have identified relevant information, or material may acquire greater significance as the issues in the case become clearer.
Where the defence believes potentially disclosable material has not been provided, it can raise the issue with the prosecution and identify why the material may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence. The issue may also need to be considered by the court.
The important point is that disclosure should be approached strategically. In a complex fraud case, identifying precisely what appears to be missing and why it matters is generally more useful than making a broad request for all material held by the prosecution.
Yes, serious disclosure problems can affect the viability or fairness of a prosecution, but a disclosure failure does not automatically mean that a fraud case will collapse.
Much depends on the nature and importance of the material, when the problem is discovered, the prejudice caused to the defendant and whether the position can be remedied fairly.
Some disclosure disputes can be addressed through further review and disclosure. Others may require judicial case management or formal applications to the court. Particularly serious problems can have much wider consequences for the prosecution.
Fraud cases can present substantial disclosure challenges because of the volume and complexity of financial and digital material involved. The key issue for the defence is therefore not simply whether a mistake has occurred, but what effect that failure has on the evidence, the defence case and the fairness of the proceedings.
A Defence Statement is a formal document identifying the nature of the defence and the issues the defendant takes with the prosecution case. It can have an important relationship with the disclosure process.
The clearer the issues in dispute become, the better able the prosecution should be to consider whether unused material is capable of undermining its case or assisting the defence.
In a fraud prosecution, a Defence Statement might address the defendant’s role within a company, their knowledge of particular transactions, an alleged dishonest intention, the commercial background to a decision or inaccuracies in the prosecution’s financial analysis.
A Defence Statement can therefore help focus further disclosure enquiries and requests. However, it is an important strategic document and should not simply be regarded as an administrative stage in proceedings. Its contents should be considered carefully against the prosecution evidence and the overall defence strategy.
A section 8 application is an application under section 8 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 seeking further disclosure from the prosecution. It may become relevant where the defence believes prosecution material that meets the disclosure test has not been disclosed.
A properly focused application should identify the material, or category of material, sought and explain why it may reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence.
In a fraud prosecution, this could concern financial information, emails, messages, digital evidence or other records relevant to a disputed transaction, an allegation of dishonesty or the defendant’s knowledge and involvement.
A section 8 application is therefore different from asking to inspect everything gathered during the investigation. The significance of the requested material to an identifiable issue in the case is important.
Yes, the defence can seek disclosure of particular categories of material where there is a proper basis for doing so. That can include emails, WhatsApp or other messages, banking information and corporate or accounting records. The important question is generally why that material matters to an issue in the case.
For example, communications may reveal the wider context of a transaction, demonstrate what the defendant knew at a particular time or support an innocent explanation. Banking records might challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of how money moved or who benefited from a transaction.
In a complex fraud case, targeted disclosure requests can therefore be valuable. Rather than seeking broad categories without explanation, the defence can identify particular accounts, individuals, date periods, communications or transactions and explain their potential significance to the defence case.
Digital evidence can present particular disclosure challenges because a single fraud investigation may generate very substantial quantities of electronic material. This can include emails, messages, mobile phone data, computer files, accounting systems, cloud data and documents obtained from businesses.
The defence may need to understand how potentially relevant material has been identified and reviewed. Depending on the particular case, issues may arise concerning search terms, relevant individuals or custodians, date ranges, particular devices or accounts and categories of documents.
This becomes particularly important where the prosecution’s case relies heavily upon selected communications or digital records. Individual messages can appear very different when considered alongside the conversation or commercial circumstances in which they arose.
Olliers’ approach is therefore to consider digital disclosure as part of the wider evidential picture rather than viewing individual prosecution documents in isolation.
A Disclosure Management Document, frequently referred to as a DMD, can explain how disclosure is being managed in a substantial or complex prosecution. Depending upon the case, it may address the nature and scale of the material, the approach taken to reviewing electronic evidence and other aspects of the prosecution’s disclosure strategy.
For somebody facing a serious fraud allegation, this can be important because the method used to identify relevant material may influence what is ultimately located and considered for disclosure.
The defence should therefore consider disclosure management documentation carefully and identify areas requiring explanation or challenge where appropriate.
In a document-heavy fraud prosecution, understanding how investigators have searched for and reviewed potentially relevant material can sometimes be almost as important as analysing the individual documents that have already been disclosed.
Not every document held by an outside organisation automatically becomes prosecution material simply because it might relate to the case. However, material held by third parties can be important and reasonable lines of enquiry may need to be considered.
In fraud cases, potentially relevant information can be held by banks, accountants, auditors, employers, insolvency practitioners, businesses, regulators or other organisations.
If the defence believes a third party holds material capable of affecting an important issue, it should identify that material as specifically as possible and explain its relevance.
For example, records held by an accountant might provide important context for a disputed accounting treatment, while documents held by a business may help establish who actually made a particular decision. Depending upon the circumstances, obtaining third-party material can therefore become an important component of the defence strategy.
As early as possible. You do not necessarily need to wait until a disclosure dispute has arisen or until a fraud prosecution reaches trial.
Many of the issues that later become important to disclosure originate much earlier in the investigation, when documents, devices and financial information are first obtained and the prosecution theory of the case begins to develop. Early legal advice can also help identify evidence that should be preserved, important lines of enquiry, potentially relevant third-party records and factual issues that may subsequently affect disclosure.
If you have already been charged, disclosure should form part of the wider defence strategy alongside analysis of the prosecution evidence, preparation of the Defence Statement, expert evidence where necessary and trial preparation.
At Olliers, we advise clients from the investigation and pre-charge stages through to complex fraud proceedings. The objective is not simply to respond to the material selected by investigators, but to understand the complete evidential picture and identify what may be missing.
Speak to specialist fraud defence solicitors
If you are under investigation for fraud, have been charged or are concerned about a disclosure failure, obtaining specialist advice early can be critical.
Olliers advises individuals and businesses in complex fraud investigations and prosecutions. We can assess the evidence relied upon against you, identify material that may be missing and develop a defence strategy addressing the factual, financial and digital issues in the case.
Visit our fraud investigations page for information about the investigative stage, our guide to what happens when a fraud case goes to court or our main fraud solicitors hub.
Contact Olliers for a confidential discussion with a specialist fraud defence solicitor.
Complete the form below and we will contact you
Manchester
Head Office
- 0161 8341515
- info@olliers.com
- Fourth Floor, 44 Peter Street, Manchester, M2 5GP