Fraud in a Digital Age: Why Jonathan Fisher KC's latest report presses for urgent government attention

In this edition of FOCUS, Valerie Charbit and Jack Talbot analyse Part 2 of Jonathan Fisher KC’s Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: Fraud in the Digital Age. 2025 saw annual losses caused by fraud total £2.3 billion, accounting for almost half of all recorded crime. 80% of those offences were due to digital or internet-facilitated fraud. This important report tackles failures in the system, a lack of joined up policy and enforcement, and makes strong recommendations to government to tackle the endemic robustly, together with practical suggestions to increase the effective restraint of assets and encourage early pleas. As Jonathan says, the government must “take the fight to fraud” by effecting “structural reform, not minor adjustment… to restore credible deterrence, protect victims and safeguard the integrity of the UK economy.”

Fraud is evolving faster than the systems designed to stop it. As life moves evermore online, the line between traditional economic crime and technology-enabled deception has blurred, exposing victims that range from global corporates to everyday consumers. Jonathan Fisher KC’s new report, “Fraud in a Digital Age,” arrives at a pivotal moment with a recent change in Prime Minister and Secretary of State of Justice, and as the new City of London fraud court prepare to open in Fleet Street in 2027. His proposals could undoubtedly make a real difference if accepted in full and implemented by government.

The report calls for a reshaped toolkit across detection, investigation, court processes and sentencing. It offers a package of measures rather than a single fix. Its 47 recommendations respond to a multifaceted and fast-moving threat, recognising that corporate, procurement, revenue and internet-based frauds each pose distinct challenges and require tailored solutions which none are receiving under the current regime.

The review is notable for its scale and ambition. It follows Fisher’s earlier report “Disclosure in a Digital Age,” published in March 2025, which the Government accepted in full in its formal response in July 2026. Together, these are the most substantial examinations of the UK’s fraud response since the Roskill Report in 1986, work that could well have been considered by a Royal Commission given its breadth both domestically and internationally, taking in the vast legal landscape that sweeps across areas as complex as organised crime and civil recovery.

Three features stand out.

First, targeted institutional levers: The report urges a paid whistleblowing capability for the Serious Fraud Office and smarter resourcing, including earmarking the proceeds arising from Deferred Prosecution Agreements to support anti-fraud work rather than having such monies default to the Treasury. Fisher observes that public support for whistleblowing, especially among younger people, could expose hidden fraudulent schemes sooner. He reminded us that HMRC and the police have long rewarded informants, and he commissioned public-opinion work which indicated stronger support in the general public than among legal professionals, with higher support among under-40s for such a measure.

Second, a wide-ranging investigative and legislative toolkit. The report rejects “silver bullets” and urges an enhanced suite of statutory provisions to provide investigators and authorities with the best possible armory, supported by systemic reform that has a presumption in favour of the early restraint of assets. Fisher’s view is that the statutory maximum sentence for fraud should be uplifted to 20 years’ imprisonment, to capture the most serious offending. He also envisages a flexible menu of resolutions, including civil fraud routes, criminal proceedings or alternative dispute resolution/restorative justice for specific lower-value cases such as theft from employers. This he says would ultimately provide speedier conclusions for cases and encourage more investigations which is much needed since the number of fraud prosecuted cases overall is currently much lower than the level of fraud which exists.

For SFO frauds, Fisher recommends contemporaneous Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) for corporates and individual directors, senior managers and employees. He notes that few DPAs conclude each year, and subsequent individual trials typically end in acquittals, and he links the need to encourage DPAs with the recent legislative change in Section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 which has expanded senior corporate criminal liability.

Third, pragmatic incentives for offenders. Fisher recommends uplifting credit to 50% for a guilty plea at Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings, reinvigorating the use of judicial Goodyear indications in a more targeted, accurate and helpful manner to enable judges to be more explicit as to potential sentences in the event of guilty pleas, reducing the number of contested trials. This would undoubtedly save precious court time and resources for a justice system under unrelenting financial pressure. He also presses for the reduction of sentences when an offender is compliant with their payment of any Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation order, pivoting away from the current system of additional sentences imposed in default of non-payment. The emphasis is squarely on compliance and the actual recovery of assets as opposed to punishing offenders in the breach.

Fraud’s harm is immediate and personally crushing. Digital fraud magnifies both scale and speed, and Fisher recalled a historic investment fraud in which victims lost pensions and some took their own lives, underscoring the need to prioritise fraud at a governmental level. The report’s message is urgency with proportionality: do more of what works, earlier, and tailor interventions to protect the public and the system’s integrity.

Digital channels intensify long-standing types of fraud and create new vehicles for fraud, with online investment and procurement fraud scaling through platforms, complicating attribution and tracing the movement of money across borders. Fisher stresses that corporate/SFO-type frauds and internet-enabled frauds need different responses, and that the current landscape allows fraud to be a crime of choice with a good chance of impunity. Our interview addressed consumer-targeted romance fraud and sextortion, which exploit identity, trust and data at speed, causing acute personal harm and complex evidential trails—emblematic of digital-era human impact. Little wonder then, that Fisher also recommends an anti-fraud levy on social media platforms and online service providers in specified social-media-based scams to fund the system from those enabling such damaging scams.

If government accepts all his recommendations, expect sharper incentives for early triage and remediation. A landscape with stronger early restraint, enhanced plea credit and more active confiscation leverage favours rapid fact-finding, voluntary disclosures where appropriate, and robust preservation of data and assets.

Compliance teams should revisit internal whistleblowing frameworks in anticipation of an SFO remunerated mechanism that may change reporting dynamics and external engagement. Cross-border data sharing and coordinated responses will be important where systems span jurisdictions. The UK is he says well placed to work collaboratively through the 2027 G20 it is hosting and through the London Fraud Leaders Summit in February 2027.

With a presumption for restraint, investigators will need to prepare applications earlier and to evidence dissipation risk as the statutory balance shifts, and Fisher urges that such a presumption should be involved as soon as a criminal investigation begins. Defence teams may weigh Goodyear indications more heavily into the mix than currently and parties would be encouraged to engage in the question of confiscation at an early stage in the case alongside a 50% early-plea discount – all of which is designed to incentivise resolution of cases.

The report seeks sharper tools not to punish indiscriminately but to protect the public, secure restitution of victims’ assets and to focus resources where they are most effective, advocating more flexibility for lower-end cases, stronger penalties were warranted by scale, and earlier interventions to prevent harm. Fisher relays a cross-profession view that large-scale fraud sentencing needs upward recalibration while some lower-end cases have been sentenced too severely, aiming for a system that is faster, fairer and attuned to the realities of fraud in a digital age.

The Government would do well to accept his report in full and at pace, so that fraud is no longer at the bottom of an unenviable list of societal priorities.

Jonathan Fisher has been open about his Parkinson’s diagnosis. In his report he helpfully suggests a simple practical measure to support disabled professionals: a confidential note to the judge, shared with opposing counsel, setting out reasonable adjustments required before any hearing. This would be so valuable for those who require such accommodations and the suggested approach to dealing with this sensitive issue should be embraced by the courts.

About the authors:

Valerie Charbit represents professionals in fraud and corporate crime cases. Her practice also spans inquests, inquiries and health and safety cases. Valerie was recently shortlisted for Corporate Crime Junior of the Year at the Legal 500 Bar Awards 2026.

Jack Talbot has developed a particular expertise in fraud and money laundering cases. His practice takes in all aspects of criminal law and he is recognised within the major legal directories as a leading practitioner in financial crime.

Ed Vickers KC is the Editor of Focus.

Faras Baloch is the Editor of the Fraud Newsletter.

If you would like to contribute to the discussions raised in FOCUS or the RLC Fraud Newsletter, or discuss the work of Chambers’ Business Crime and Fraud Team, more generally, please do get in touch with Client and Business Development Director, Maurice MacSweeney.