Fraud Offences Sentencing Data
Analysis and Research Bulletin June 2013 This bulletin provides statistics on the outcomes and demographics of offenders1 sentenced for offences covered by the draft guideline on fraud offences. The consultation period for the fraud offences draft guideline will begin on 27 June 2013 and close on 4 October 2013. Further information on these offences and the draft guideline can be found in the consultation document which can be accessed via the Current Consultations page on the Sentencing Council website, at the following link: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing/consultations-current.htm
The Court Proceedings Database (CPD), maintained by the Ministry of Justice is the source of the data for this bulletin. Data on the CPD is categorised by the relevant legislation under which proceedings are brought.
Background Information There are six draft fraud guidelines:
1. Fraud (other than revenue or benefit fraud) This includes offences covered by: ●●Section 1 Fraud Act 2006:fraud*; and ●●Section 17 Theft Act 1968:false accounting*.
2. Possessing, making or supplying articles for use in fraud This includes offences covered by: ●●Section 6 Fraud Act 2006:possession of articles for use in fraud; and ●●Section 7 Fraud Act 2006:making or supplying articles for use in frauds.
3. Revenue fraud (against HM Revenue and Customs) This includes offences covered by: ●●Section 1 Fraud Act 2006:fraud*; ●●Section 17 Theft Act 1968:false accounting*; ●●Section 72(1) Value Added Tax Act 1994:fraudulent evasion of VAT; ●●Section 72(3) Value Added Tax Act 1994:false statement for VAT purposes; ●●Section 72(8) Value Added Tax Act 1994:conduct amounting to an offence; ●●Section 106A Taxes Management Act 1970:fraudulent evasion of income tax; ●●Section 170(1)(a)(i),(ii),(b), 170(2)(a), 170B Customs and Excise Management Act 1979:fraudulent evasion of excise duty; and ●●Section 50(1)(a), 50(2) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979:improper importation of goods.
Office of the Sentencing Council 1 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
1. Includes adult offenders (aged 18 or over)at the time of sentence and companies/public bodies Analysis and Research Bulletin Background
4. Benefit fraud This includes offences covered by: ●●Section 1 Fraud Act 2006:fraud*; ●●Section 17 Theft Act 1968:false accounting*; ●●Section 111A Social Security Administration Act 1992:dishonest representations for obtaining benefit etc; ●●Section 35 Tax Credits Act 2002:tax credit fraud; and ●●Section 112 Social Security Administration Act 1992:false representations for obtaining benefit etc.
5. Money laundering This includes offences covered by: ●●Section 327 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002:concealing /disguising /converting / transferring /removing criminal property from England & Wales; ●●Section 328 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: entering into arrangements concerning criminal property; and ●●Section 329 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002:acquisition, use and possession of criminal property.
6. Bribery This includes offences covered by: ●●Section 1 Bribery Act 2010:bribing another person; and ●●Section 2 Bribery Act 2010:bribing of foreign public officials.
*These two offences are listed in three different guidelines, as the individual guidelines focus on a particular fraudulent activity and the likely victim of that fraud. For the purpose of this bulletin, data for these offences will only be included in Section One: General Trends and Section Two: Fraud (other than revenue and benefit fraud)
Due to data classification, not all offences will be included and/or described in detail within this statistics bulletin. Please refer to the index on page 3 to identify which offences are included in each section of the bulletin.
Office of the Sentencing Council 2 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Background
Index
It is essential that the reader bear in mind the offences included in each section of this bulletin to facilitate understanding and avoid misunderstanding of the statistics for fraud offences.
Section One: General Trends Provides general trends and aggregate sentencing data across all the fraud guideline offences, for which there data are available.
Section Two: Fraud (other than revenue and benefit fraud) This section includes data for the offences of: ●●Section 1 Fraud Act 2006:fraud; and ●●Section 17 Theft Act 1968:false accounting.
Section Three: Possession, making or supplying articles for use in fraud This section includes data for the offences of: ●●Section 6 Fraud Act 2006:possession of articles for use in fraud; and ●●Section 7 Fraud Act 2006:making or supplying articles for use in frauds.
Section Four: Revenue fraud (against HM Revenue and Customs) This section includes data for the offences of: ●●Section 170(2)(a), 170B Customs and Excise Management Act 1979:fraudulent evasion of excise duty; and ●●Section 50(2)(a) & (4) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979:improper importation of goods. All other revenue fraud offences are excluded due to multiple offences classified under the same CPD code.
Section Five: Benefit fraud This section includes data for the offences of: ●●Section 111A Social Security Administration Act 1992:dishonest representations for obtaining benefit etc; and ●●Section 112 Social Security Administration Act 1992:false representations for obtaining benefit etc. All other benefit fraud offences are excluded due to multiple offences classified under the same CPD code.
Office of the Sentencing Council 3 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Background
Section Six: Money Laundering This section includes data for the offences of: ●●Section 327 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002:concealing /disguising /converting / transferring /removing criminal property from England & Wales; and ●●Section 328 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: entering into arrangements concerning criminal property; and ●●Section 329 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002:acquisition, use and possession of criminal property.
There is no section for Bribery as there is limited data available for the offences covered by this guideline.Sentencing data for offences included in the draft guideline for the offence of bribery has not been categorised in enough detail to provide a report of sentencing practice.
The statistics bulletin for fraud offences does not differentiate between offences committed by individuals and organisations, because so few organisations are sentenced each year (n=4 in 2011).
Although the Ministry of Justice has now published sentencing data for 2012; this bulletin reflects the data used by the Sentencing Council in the development of its draft Fraud offences guideline which began in November 2012.
The figures on which all of the tables and charts provided in this bulletin are based are available for download as Excel spreadsheets at the following link: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/facts/research-and-analysis-publications.htm
Office of the Sentencing Council 4 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section One
Section 1: General trends Figure 1.2 demonstrates the relative across all fraud offence contribution of each guideline, to the total guidelines number of offenders sentenced each year. Section 1, 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 This section summarises data across all fraud contribute to the increase in volume of offences offences covered by the draft guideline, for since 2006, which may be due to certain types which data is available1. When reading this of fraudulent activity being brought into the section, it is important to bear in mind that it scope of fraud offences for the first time (see includes a wide range of offences, as illustrated the previous paragraph). Though the number by the difference in statutory maximum of individuals sentenced each year for benefit sentences which range from level five fine and/ fraud appears to be on a decline, it is not or three months’ custody to 14 years’ custody. known if this is due to fewer offences being Most cases in 2011, 65 per cent of them, were committed, a change in charging practice, an sentenced at the magistrates’ court. increase in out of court settlements or other plausible explanations. Figure 1.1 shows the volume of offenders3 sentenced for a fraud offence since 2001. Figure 1.2: Number of offenders sentenced The number of fraud offences sentenced has for all fraud offences, by guideline, increased following the introduction of the 2006 2001 - 2011
Fraud Act, which came into force on 15 January 18000 2007 and may have brought into the scope 16000 14000 of fraud offences some fraudulent activity not 12000 10000 previously recorded as fraud. This contributed 8000 6000 to the increase in the volume of offenders 4000 sentenced between 2007 and 2011, compared 2000 0 to pre 2007 levels. The volume of offenders has 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Benefit fraud Revenue Fraud been relatively stable since 2009, with 16,317 Section 1 Fraud Act 2006 & Section 17 Theft Act 1968 Possessing, making or supplying articles for use in fraud offences in 2011. Money laundering
Figure 1.1: Number of offenders sentenced for all fraud offences, covered by the draft Figure 1.3 shows how the relative proportion of guidelines, 2001 - 2011 disposal types used to sentence offenders for fraud offences covered by the draft guideline 18000 has changed since 2001. The increase in the 16000 proportionate use of suspended sentence 14000 orders (SSO) from 2005 followed their 12000
10000 implementation under the Criminal Justice 8000 Act 2003. This had a corresponding decrease 6000 in the use of other disposals types, which is 4000
Number of o enders sentenced o enders of Number clearly demonstrated in this figure. 2000
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Office of the Sentencing Council 5 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
2. See introduction. 3. Includes both individuals and organisations Analysis and Research Bulletin Section One
Figure 1.3: Disposals received by offenders Figure 1.4: Disposals received by offenders for all fraud offences covered by the draft for a fraud offences covered by the draft guidelines, 2001 - 2011 guidelines in 2011
40 Absolute and Conditional Discharge 35 Fine 30 Community Order 25 Suspended Sentence Order 20
15 Immediate Custody
10 Other Percentage of o enders sentenced o enders of Percentage 5 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Number of o enders sentenced 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Absolute and Suspended Sentence Order Conditional Discharge Immediate Custody Fine Figure 1.5: Average custodial sentence Community Order Otherwise dealt with length received by offenders sentenced to immediate custody for fraud offences The use of immediate custody has increased covered by the draft guidelines, 2001 - 2011 from five per cent in 2002 to 18 per cent in 18
2011; the proportion of sentences accounted 16 for by the use of absolute and conditional 14 discharge has declined by two thirds, since its 12 10 peak of 36.2 per cent in 2002, to 12.4 per cent 8 in 2011. The introduction of the Fraud Act in in Months ACSL 6
2006 is also likely to have had an impact on 4 the relative proportions of the different types of 2 0 disposals. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mean Median In 2011, the most common disposal used was a community order, given to 5998 offenders, Both the mean and median show variation which accounts for 37 per cent of all sentences. across the decade, with the largest one year This can be seen in Figure 1.4, which shows change occurring from 2006 to 2007, where the number of sentences received by offenders the mean decreased by four and a half months sentenced in 2011 by disposal type. and the median decreased by three months. This change is likely due to the introduction of Figure 1.5 shows the average custodial the Fraud Act 2006, which may have brought sentence length imposed on offenders between into scope fraudulent activity not previously 2001 and 2011. The sentence length listed is classified as fraud offences and had lower the length imposed after taking into account ACSL than the existing fraud offences, see any reduction for a guilty plea, where relevant. figure 2.4.
Office of the Sentencing Council 6 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Two
Section 2: Fraud (other than Community order has remained the most revenue and benefit fraud)2 common sentence handed out since 2004.
In 2011, there were 7,897 offenders sentenced Figure 2.2: Disposals received by offenders for offences included in this section. As the for fraud offences, 2007-2011 number of individuals sentenced for s1 Fraud 40
Act 2006 (n=7,856) is significantly larger 35 than the number sentenced under s17 Theft 30
Act 1968 (n=41 in 2011), statistics for these 25 offences will be reported together. Due to the 20 low volume of sentences for s17 Theft Act 1968 15
prior to 2006, time trends will begin from 2007, 10 Percentage of o enders sentenced o enders of Percentage which is the first year in which data is available 5 for s1 Fraud Act 2006. 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Absolute and Suspended Sentence Order Conditional Discharge Figure 2.1 shows the number of offenders Fine Immediate Custody sentenced between 2007 and 2011. The Community Order Otherwise dealt with number of individuals sentenced has increased 3-fold from 2,501 in 2007 to 7,797 in 2010, with The disposal types received by offenders a similar volume in 2011. Sixty five per cent of in 2011 are shown in Figure 2.3, with 2,956 combined s1 and s17 cases were seen at the offenders receiving a community order. magistrates’ court. Immediate custody was the next most common outcome. Figure 2.1: Number of offenders sentenced for fraud offences, 2007 – 2011 Figure 2.3: Disposals received by offenders
8000 sentenced for fraud offences in 2011
7000 Absolute and conditional discharge 6000 Fine 5000 Community order 4000 Suspended sentence order 3000 Immediate custody
2000 Number of o enders sentenced o enders of Number 1000 Otherwise dealt with 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Number of o enders sentenced
The average custodial sentence length (Figure The disposals received by offenders sentenced 2.4) has increased each year since 2006, more for these offences are shown in Figure 2.2. The then doubling following the introduction of the use of disposals has been relatively consistent Fraud Act 2006, from five months and 24 days following the introduction of the Fraud Act in in 2007 to 12 months and 12 days in 2011. The 2006. mean has remained higher than the median since 2007, indicating that the mean has been skewed by a relatively low number of high
Office of the Sentencing Council 7 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
2. See the introductory section for the offences included in this section. Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Two length sentences. The averages shown are Demographics of offenders after a guilty plea reduction, where appropriate. sentenced for offences under Section 1 Fraud Act 2006 and Figure 2.4: Average custodial sentence Section 17 Theft Act 1968 length received by offenders sentenced to immediate custody for fraud offences, Of all offenders sentenced in 2011, 72 per cent 2007 -2011 were male, 26 per cent were female, (1.5 per cent not recorded). A third of all offenders 14 were in the age bracket 22 to 29 and an 12 additional 27 per cent were between 30 to 39 10 years old. In 62 per cent of cases, the offender 8 was believed to be of White origin by the police 6 officer dealing with the case. The proportions ACSL in Months ACSL 4 amongst those for whom data on perceived
2 ethnicity was provided may not reflect the
0 demographics of the full population of those 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 sentenced due to the significant proportion Mean Median (17 per cent) of unknown cases. Further detail on the age and perceived ethnicity of adults Figure 2.5 shows the full range of sentence sentenced for Section 1 Fraud Act 2006 and lengths received by offenders sentenced Section 17 Theft Act 1968 is shown in Figure to immediate custody in 2011. Half of all 2.6. sentences were shorter than eight months, and a relatively small amount of offenders received Figure 2.6: Age demographics and a sentence of greater than 36 months. perceived ethnicity of adults sentenced for fraud offences in 2011 Figure 2.5: Sentence lengths received by 60+ Not recorded/ offenders sentenced to immediate custody 50 to 59 2% 18 to 21 Not known 7% 12% 17% for fraud offences in 2011 Other 2% 500 40 to 49 19% Asian 8% 400 20 to 29 33% White 30 to 39 Black 62% 300 27% 11%
200
100 Number of o enders sentenced sentenced Number of o enders
0 12 to 16 16 to 20 28 to 32 8 to 12 <4 4 to 8 >36 20 to 24 24 to 28 32 to 36
Sentence length (months)
Office of the Sentencing Council 8 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Three
Section 3: Possessing, making Figure 3.2: Disposals received by offenders or supplying articles for use in sentenced for possession, making or fraud supplying articles used for fraud, 2007-2011
50 Between 2007 and 2011, ninety per cent of offenders sentenced for offences in this section 40 were sentenced for offences under Section 30 6 Fraud Act 2006. Due to the comparatively low volume of s7 offences, the statistics in this 20
section will be shown for combined s6 and s7 10 Percentage of o enders sentenced o enders of Percentage offences. 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Absolute and Suspended Sentence Order In 2011, 642 offenders were sentenced for s6 Conditional Discharge Fine Immediate Custody and s7 Fraud Act 2006, shown in Figure 3.1. Community Order Otherwise dealt with This has increased year on year to 2009 and has remained fairly stable since. Just over half (52 per cent) of all cases in 2011, were seen at In 2011, 254 offenders were sentenced to the Crown Court. immediate custody for Section 6, and a further 20 for Section 7 offences, as shown in Figure Figure 3.1: Number of offenders sentenced 3.3. Community order was the second most for possessing, making or supplying frequent disposal type, given to 163 (25 per articles used for fraud, 2007 – 2011 cent) of all offenders sentenced in 2011.
800 Figure 3.3: Disposals received by offenders 700 sentenced for possession, making or 600 supplying articles used for fraud in 2011 500 Absolute and 400 conditional discharge
300 Fine
200 Community order Number of o enders sentenced o enders of Number 100 Suspended sentence order
0 Immediate custody 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 Otherwise dealt with
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Immediate custodial sentence has remained Number of o enders sentenced the most common disposal used for these offences since their introduction, as shown Figure 3.4 presents the average custodial in Figure 3.2. The use of fines and discharge sentence length imposed on offenders have been on the decline, while community sentenced to custody for Section 6 & 7 Fraud order, suspended sentence and to a lesser Act 2006 offences. extent custody, have seen an increase in their relative proportion since 2007. Though there was no clear trend, the mean sentence length peaked in 2008 at 11 months and eight days. The mean then gradual declined to nine months and four days in 2010
Office of the Sentencing Council 9 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Three before slightly increasing to nine months and Demographics of offenders 25 days in 2011. sentenced for offences involving possessing, making Figure: 3.4: Average custodial sentence or supplying articles used for length received by offenders sentenced to fraud immediate custody for possession, making or supplying articles used for fraud, In 2011, 90 per cent of offenders sentenced 2007 – 2011 were male. Fifty five per cent of offenders
12 sentenced were perceived to be of White origin by the police officer dealing with the case. 10 The proportions amongst those for whom data 8 on perceived ethnicity was provided may not
6 reflect the demographics of the full population
ACSL in Months ACSL of those sentenced. Just under 46 per cent 4 were between the ages of 22 to 29, and a 2 further 23 per cent were between ages 30
0 to 39. Further detail on age and perceived 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mean Median ethnicity of offenders sentenced for possessing and making articles for use in fraud, are shown Figure 3.5 presents the full range of sentence in Figure 3.6. lengths received by offenders sentenced to immediate custody in 2011. The sentence Figure 3.6: Age demographics and length presented is after the consideration of a perceived ethnicity of adults sentenced for guilty plea. possession, making or supplying articles used for fraud in 2011 Figure 3.5: Sentence lengths received by 60+ 1% Not recorded/ 50 to 59 18 to 21 4% Not known offenders sentenced to immediate custody 13% 18% for possession, making or supplying Other 40 to 49 5% articles used for fraud in 2011 14%
80 Asian White 30 to 39 20 to 29 8% 55% 46% 70 23% Black 15% 60
50
40
30
20
10 Number of o enders sentenced sentenced Number of o enders
0 12 to 15 18 to 21 15 to 18 21 to 24 27 to 30 24 to 27 <3 3 to 6 6 to 9 30 to 33 >33 9 to 12
Sentence length (months)
Office of the Sentencing Council 10 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Four
Section 4: Revenue fraud included in the draft guideline, over the last (against HM Revenue and decade. Customs) Figure 4.2: Disposals received by offenders In 2011, 171 offenders were sentenced for sentenced for revenue fraud, 2001-2011 offences under the Customs and Excise 80 1 Management Act 1979 . As this is first year in 70 which data for Cheat the Revenue offences 60 was recorded in the CPD, these offences have 50 been excluded from the statistics presented in 40 this section to avoid misunderstanding of the 30
statistics. 20 Percentage of o enders sentenced o enders of Percentage 10
The majority (87 per cent) of all offenders 0 sentenced for Customs and Excise 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Absolute and Suspended Sentence Order Management Act 1979 offences were Conditional Discharge Fine Immediate Custody sentenced at the Crown Court, in 2011. Community Order Otherwise dealt with
Figure 4.1 shows how the volume of offenders The proportion of offenders sentenced to sentenced has changed since 2001. There immediate custody, the most common disposal was sudden drop in the volume of offenders type, has declined from 69 per cent in 2001 to sentenced for offences under Customs and 47 per cent in 2004. Between 2004 and 2010 Excise Management Act 1979, between 2001 the proportion has fluctuated between 47 per and 2002, from 462 to 274, before rising to cent and 54 per cent; increasing to 62 per cent 406 in 2003. Overall, the number of offenders in 2011. The use of both community order and sentenced has been on a decline since 2003, fine has experienced an overall downward falling nearly 58 per cent between 2003 and trend, with fluctuation each year as the use of 2011. suspended sentence orders have increased since 2005. Figure 4.1: Number of offenders sentenced for revenue fraud, 2001 – 2011 Although there has been a shift in the use
500 of different disposal types, without knowing the relative severity or other details of the 400 cases coming to the courts each year, it is not
300 possible to say whether these trends indicate a change in the way that the courts are dealing 200 with revenue fraud offences.
100
Number of o enders sentenced o enders of Number Recent sentencing practice for revenue fraud
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 offences covered by the draft guideline (in terms of number of offenders sentenced) is Figure 4.2 shows the disposals used when presented in Figure 4.3. sentencing offenders under the sections of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
Office of the Sentencing Council 11 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
1. Thirty-six offenders were sentenced for Cheat the Revenue in 2011, all of which were sentenced at the Crown Court. Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Four
Figure 4.3: Disposals received by offenders between 2003 and 2010. Though there was sentenced for revenue fraud in 2011 a notable increase in 2011, data from 2011 onward will be required to indicate whether Absolute and conditional discharge this is an outlier or an escalation of the upward Fine trend. Without knowing the relative severity of Community order cases coming to the courts, it is not possible to
Suspended sentence order say whether this increase in average sentence
Immediate custody length is due to a change in sentencing practice or the details of the case. Otherwise dealt with
0 20 40 60 80 100 Number of o enders sentenced In 2011, the mean sentence length for offenders sentenced to immediate custody for Immediate custody, followed by suspended Cheat the Revenue offences was nearly three sentence order, was the most common disposal years (2.97 years, median 2.66 years). used for sentencing offences under Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 in 20111. Figure 4.5 shows a histogram of the sentence length imposed on offenders sentenced for The average sentence length imposed each revenue fraud offences covered by this section year between 2001 and 2011 for offenders of the bulletin in 2011. Just fewer than 70 per sentenced to immediate custody for offences cent of custodial sentences were less than four under Customs and Excise Management Act years and seven per cent of offenders received 1979 is shown in Figure 4.4. The average a sentence of over eight years in length. sentence length presented is after any reduction for a guilty plea, if given. Figure: 4.5: Sentence lengths received by offenders sentenced to immediate custody Figure: 4.4: Average custodial sentence for revenue fraud in 2011
length received by offenders sentenced to 35 immediate custody revenue fraud, 30 2001 – 2011 25
3.5 20
3.0 15
2.5 10
2.0 5 Number of o enders sentenced sentenced Number of o enders 1.5 0 ACSL in Years ACSL in Years 1 to 2 5 to 6 3 to 4 2 to 3 7 to 8 > 8 4 to 5 6 to 7 < 1 1.0
0.5 Sentence length (years)
0.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mean Median
There was a slight upward trend in the sentence length, with the mean increasing by 34 per cent (median increase by 40 per cent)
Office of the Sentencing Council 12 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
1. In 2011, 89 per cent of offenders received immediate custody and 11 per cent received suspended sentence orders for Cheat the Revenue offences Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Four
Demographics of offenders sentenced for Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 offences
Of all offenders sentenced for Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 offences covered by the guideline, 94 per cent were male.
Forty five per cent of offenders were perceived to be of white origin by the police officer dealing with the case. For 39 per cent of offenders, the ethnicity was either not known or not recorded; therefore the proportions amongst those for whom data on perceived ethnicity was provided may not reflect the demographics of the full population of those sentenced.
A third of all offenders were in the age bracket of 40 to 49, and an additional quarter of offenders were between ages 30 to 39. Similar results were observed when including Cheat the Revenue offences. Further information on age and perceived ethnicity of offenders sentenced for Revenue fraud offences can be found in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6: Age demographics and perceived ethnicity of adults sentenced for revenue fraud in 2011
18 to 21 60+ 3% 8%
22 to 29 50 to 59 13% 16% Not recorded/ Not known White 30 to 39 38% 45% 26% 40 to 49 33%
Other 7% Asian Black 9% 2%
Office of the Sentencing Council 13 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Five
Figure 5.2 shows the historic trend of disposal Section 5: Benefit fraud types for sentencing offenders for the benefit fraud offences covered by this section. In 2011, 6,080 offenders were sentenced for offences included in the benefit fraud Figure 5.2: Disposals received by offenders statistics bulletin. Of these, 75 per cent were sentenced for benefit fraud, 2001-2011 for offences under S111A & S11A Social Security Administration Act 1992 and 25 per 45 cent were under Section 112 Social Security 40 35 Administration Act 1992. 30
25
Figure 5.1 shows how the number of offenders 20 sentenced for these offences has changed 15 10 since 2001. sentenced o enders of Percentage 5
0 Figure 5.1: Number of offenders sentenced 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Absolute and Suspended sentence order for benefit fraud, 2001 – 2011 conditional discharge Community order Immediate custody Fine 9000 Otherwise dealt with
8000 7000 The proprtionate use of suspended sentence 6000 orders (SSO), implemented under the Criminal 5000 Justice Act 2003, has increased steadily since 4000 2005. 3000
2000 Number of o enders sentenced o enders of Number 1000 The use of absolute and conditional discharge
0 has shown a gradual decline since 2003, falling 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 from 38 per cent of all disposals to 16 per cent in 2011. Until 2008, the number of offenders sentenced for these benefit fraud offences was fairly Between 2001 and 2005, fines were given on stable, averaging at 8180 per annum. Since average to 23 per cent of offenders, reducing then, there has been a year on year decrease. to an annual average of 17 per cent of all offenders between 2006 and 2011. In 2011, the number of offenders sentenced for these offences, 6080, was the lowest number Although there has been a change in the use since 2001. It is not known if this is due to a of different disposal types, without knowing change in charging practice, an increase in the the relative severity or other details of the use of out of court settlements, fewer offences cases coming to the courts each year, it is not committed or another plausible explanation. In possible to say whether these trends indicate 2011, the majority of cases (79 per cent) were a change in the way that the courts are dealing seen at the magistrates’ court. with benefit fraud cases.
In 2011, the most common disposal type was a community order, accounting for 41 per cent
Office of the Sentencing Council 14 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Five of all sentences. This can be seen in Figure of £135) in 2011. 5.3, which shows the disposals received by offenders sentenced in 2011. Figure 5.5 shows the full range of amounts imposed on offenders sentenced to a fine in Figure 5.3: Disposals received by offenders 2011. Two thirds of fines imposed were for £200 sentenced for benefit fraud in 2011 or less. The largest fine imposed was £5,000.
Absolute and conditional discharge Figure: 5.5: Sentence lengths received by Fine offenders sentenced to immediate custody Community order for benefit fraud in 2011 Suspended sentence order 300 Immediate custody 250 Otherwise dealt with
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 200 Number of o enders sentenced
150
100 Figure 5.4 shows the average fine amount imposed on offenders between 2001 and 2011. 50 Number of o enders sentenced sentenced Number of o enders
Where historic fine amounts are described, 0 >500 100 to 150 150 to 200 200 to 250 250 to 300 300 to 350 350 to 400 400 to 450 450 to 500 <50 50 to 100 nominal amounts are shown. No attempt has been made to adjust for the price level (inflation). Additionally, the fine amounts listed Fine amount (£) are the amounts imposed after taking into account any reduction for a guilty plea.
Figure: 5.4: Average fine amoung received by offenders sentenced to immediate custody benefit fraud,2001 – 2011
350
300
250
200
150
100 Average ne amount (£) ne amount Average
50
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mean Median The average fine amount increased by 136 per cent between 2003 and its peak in 2007, and then decreased by 37 per cent between 2007 and 2010. There has been a slight increase (7 per cent) in average fine from £198 (mean, median of £120) in 2010 to £212 (mean, median
Office of the Sentencing Council 15 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Five
Demographics of offenders sentenced for benefit fraud offences
Where the gender was known (90.3 per cent of cases), 54 per cent of offenders sentenced for benefit fraud offences were female. Nearly 30 percent of those sentenced were in the age bracket of 40 to 49, and a further quarter of offenders were in the age bracket 30 to 39. Further information on the age demographics of offenders can be found in Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6: Age demographics of offenders sentenced for benefit fraud in 2011
18 to 21 60+ 1% 9%
22 to 29 50 to 59 16% 19%
30 to 39 26% 40 to 49 29%
For the majority of offenders sentenced, 92 per cent, the perceived ethnicity was either not known or not recorded by the police officer dealing with their case. For this reason, perceived ethnicity is not presented in this section.
Office of the Sentencing Council 16 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Six
been a slight decline in the use of absolute and Section 6: Money laundering conditional discharge, fine and otherwise dealt with cases, since 2007. In 2011, 1406 offenders were sentenced for offences covered by the money laundering Figure 6.2: Disposals received by offenders draft guideline, as presented in Figure 6.1. The sentenced for money laundering, 2004-2011 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (the Act), came into effect on 24 February 2003; however data 60 are shown from 2004 onwards due to the very 50 low volumes of sentences recorded in the first 40 few years after the introduction of the Act. 30 Following the introduction of the Act, there was a large increase in the number of offenders 20 sentenced from 2004 to 2006, followed by sentenced o enders of Percentage 10 a period of stability, before peaking at 1,477 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 offenders sentenced in 2010. Slightly less than Absolute and Suspended sentence order conditional discharge 75 per cent of all cases were seen at the Crown Fine Immediate custody Court in 2011. Community order Otherwise dealt with
Figure 6.1: Number of offenders sentenced Although there has been a change in the use for money laundering, 2004 – 2011 of different disposal types, without knowing 1500 the relative severity or other details of the
1200 cases coming to the courts each year, it is not possible to say whether these trends indicate 900 a change in the way that the courts are dealing with money laundering offences. 600
300
Number of o enders sentenced o enders of Number In 2011, immediate custody was the most common disposal used, accounting for 37 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 per cent of all sentences. This can be seen in Figure 6.3, which shows the disposals received by offenders in 2011. Figure 6.2 shows the historic trend of disposal types when sentencing offenders for money Figure 6.3: Disposals received by offenders laundering offences covered by the draft sentenced for money laundering in 2011 guideline. Absolute and conditional discharge Following a period of initial volatility after the Fine introduction of the Act, the relative use of the Community order disposals has become more consistent since Suspended sentence order
2008. The use of community order showed the Immediate custody most marked decline following the introduction Otherwise dealt with of suspended sentence orders, but has been 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Number of o enders sentenced comparatively stable since 2008. There has
Office of the Sentencing Council 17 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Six
The average sentence length imposed on Figure: 6.5: Sentence lengths received offenders sentenced to immediate custody for by offenders sentenced to immediate money laundering offences between 2004 and custody for money laundering in 2011
2011 is shown in Figure 6.4. The sentence 120 length listed is the length imposed after taking 100 into account guilty plea reductions, if relevant. 80
Figure: 6.4: Average custodial sentence 60 length received by offenders sentenced to 40 immediate custody money laundering, 2004 – 2011 20 Number of o enders sentenced sentenced Number of o enders < 0.5 0.5 to 1 1 to 1.5 1.5 to 2 2 to 2.5 2.5 to 3 3 to 3.5 3.5 to 4 4 to 4.5 4.5 to 5 3.0 0 >5
2.5 Sentence length (years) 2.0
1.5 ACSL ACSL in Years 1.0
0.5
0.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mean Median
Both the mean and median follow the same trend, a decrease in length over the first few years following the introduction of the act, followed by relatively consistent sentence lengths between 2005 and 2011. The average sentence length between 2005 and 2011 was 1 year and 8 months (mean, median of 1 year and 2 months).
Figure 6.5 shows the full range of sentence lengths imposed for offenders sentenced to immediate custody in 2011.
Over three quarters, 76 per cent, of offenders received a sentence length of 2.5 years or less, compared to fewer than six per cent receiving a sentence of longer than five years.
Office of the Sentencing Council 18 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section Six
Demographics of offenders sentenced for money laundering offences covered by the draft guideline
In 2011, 83 per cent of offenders sentenced for money laundering offences, were male. Thirty per cent of offenders were between the ages of 22 to 29, and a further 28 per cent were in the age bracket 30 to 39. The majority of offenders sentenced, 61 per cent, were perceived to be of White origin by the police officer dealing with their case. The proportions amongst those for whom data on perceived ethnicity was provided may not reflect the demographics of the full population of those sentenced. Further information on the age and ethnicity of offenders can be found in Figure 6.6.
Figure 6.6: Age demographics and perceived ethnicity of offenders sentenced for money laundering in 2011
Not recorded/ 60+ Not known 50 to 59 3% 11% 8% Other 4% 18 to 21 15% 40 to 49 Asian 17% 10% 22 to 29 White 30% Black 61% 30 to 39 15% 28%
Office of the Sentencing Council 19 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Further Information
Further Information
Notes on the Data
Volumes of sentences The data presented only include cases where the fraud offence was the principal offence committed. Where an offender commits multiple offences on a single occasion, the offence which received the most severe sentence is taken to be the principal offence. Although the offender will receive a sentence for each of the offences that they are convicted of, it is only the sentence for the principal offence that is presented in this bulletin. This way of representing the data is consistent with the Ministry of Justice publication, Criminal Justice Statistics.
Sentence Outcomes The outcomes presented are the final sentence outcomes, after taking into account all factors of the case, including whether a guilty plea was made. This contrasts with the sentencing ranges presented at step 2 of the draft new guideline, which are the recommended sentence lengths before taking into account certain factors, such as whether a reduction is appropriate for a guilty plea. Therefore, the sentence outcomes shown in the data are not directly comparable to the ranges provided in the new guideline.
Offence severity The data provided takes account of offence type, but not the severity of the offence committed within the offence type. This is especially important to note when analysing the variation in sentencing through time: it is not possible to distinguish whether variation is due to changes in sentencing practice, or whether it is due to changes in the severity of the crimes for which offenders are being sentenced.
Fine amount Where historic fine amounts are described, nominal amounts are shown. No attempt has been made to adjust for the price level (inflation). Additionally, the fine amounts listed are the amounts imposed after taking into account guilty plea reductions.
Offender Gender and Ethnicity Where the ethnicity of sentenced adults is described, the ethnicity as perceived by the police officer dealing with the case is used. Perceived ethnicity is the most comprehensive data source available on ethnicity; therefore it is used in preference to any other source of ethnicity data. However, for some fraud offences, there are a high proportion of cases where the perceived ethnicity was not known or not recorded. Therefore the ethnicity data should be read with some caution. The proportions reflected amongst those for whom data was provided may not reflect the demographics of the full population of those sentenced.
Office of the Sentencing Council 20 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Section One
General Conventions The following conventions have been applied to the data:
●● Percentages derived from the data have been provided in the narrative and displayed on charts to the nearest whole percentage, except when the nearest whole percentage is zero. In some instances, this may mean that percentages shown, for example in pie charts, do not add up to 100 per cent.
●● Where the nearest whole per cent is zero, the convention ‘<0.5’ has been used.
●● Where totals have been provided, these have been calculated using unrounded data and then rounded. Therefore percentages provided in the narrative may differ slightly from the sum of percentages shown on the pie charts.
Data Sources and Quality
The primary source of data for this bulletin is the Court Proceedings Database which is supplied to the Sentencing Council by the Ministry of Justice who obtain it from a variety of administrative data systems compiled by courts and police forces.
Every effort is made by the Ministry of Justice and the Sentencing Council to ensure that the figures presented in this publication are accurate and complete.Although care is taken in collating and analysing the returns used to compile these figures, the data are of necessity subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system. Consequently, although numbers in tables and charts are shown to the last digit in order to provide a comprehensive record of the information collected, they are not necessarily accurate to the last digit shown.
Further details of the processes by which the Ministry of Justice validate the records in this database can be found within the guide to their Criminal Justice Statistics publication which can be downloaded at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/criminal-justice-statistics
Office of the Sentencing Council 21 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Further Information
Other sources of data on fraud offences
There were two replies to parliamentary questions to which we had regard in devising the corporate fraud guideline:
In a response to a parliamentary question it was confirmed that when Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigate a company for tax evasion with a view to prosecution, it will pursue the officers of that company rather than the company itself and that the majority of tax evasion cases are dealt with using civil settlement remedies. The parliamentary question and response can be accessed via the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130114/text/130114w0005.htm
In a response to a parliamentary question details were given of all fines and civil recovery orders in cases brought by the Serious Fraud Office since 2008. The parliamentary question and response can be accessed via the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121211/text/121211w0001. htm#12121178000010
Background Information
The Ministry of Justice publishes a quarterly statistical publication, Criminal Justice Statistics, which includes a section focusing on sentencing data at national level. This section breaks down the data by offence group and by demographic factors such as age, gender and ethnicity. The full publication can be accessed via the Ministry of Justice website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/criminal-justice-statistics
Detailed sentencing data from the Ministry of Justice’s Court Proceedings Database can be accessed via the Open Justice website at: http://open.justice.gov.uk/sentencing/
This website allows the data to be viewed by offence category, local police force area and sentencing court. The offence categories used on this website are consistent with those used by the Ministry of Justice in their Criminal Justice Statistics publication.
Further information on general sentencing practice in England in Wales can be found on the Council’s website or at the Ministry of Justice website at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/
Alternatively, you may wish to visit the sentencing area on the Direct.gov website, which can be accessed at: http://sentencing.cjsonline.gov.uk/
Office of the Sentencing Council 22 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk Analysis and Research Bulletin Further Information
Uses Made of the Data
Data provided in the Council’s range of analysis and research bulletins are used to inform public debate of the Council’s work. In particular, this bulletin aims to provide the public with the key data that the Council has used to help formulate the draft guideline on fraud offences.
Contact Points for Further Information
We would be very pleased to hear your views on our analysis and research bulletins. If you have any feedback or comments, please send them to: [email protected]
Responsible Statistician Trevor Steeples 02070715793
Press Office Enquires Nick Mann 02070715792
Further information on the Sentencing Council and their work can be found at: http://sentencingcouncil.org.uk
Office of the Sentencing Council 23 Tel: 020 7071 5793 | Email: [email protected] www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk