Crime-Fraud Exception

Crime-Fraud Exception
Crime-Fraud Exception
Quick Summary of Crime-Fraud Exception

The crime-fraud exception is a legal principle that states attorney-client communications related to a current or planned crime or fraud are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney-work-product privilege. For instance, if a client seeks advice from their attorney on how to commit fraud or conceal a crime, those communications are not covered by the attorney-client privilege. The attorney is not allowed to keep such communications confidential and may be obligated to disclose them to law enforcement or a court. Similarly, if an attorney assists their client in fabricating documents or deceiving a court, those actions are not protected by the attorney-work-product privilege. The attorney cannot use their work as a shield to shield themselves or their client from criminal or civil liability. The crime-fraud exception serves as a crucial tool for law enforcement to uncover criminal activity and hold individuals accountable for their actions. It also safeguards the integrity of the legal profession by preventing attorneys from exploiting their position to aid in criminal or fraudulent endeavors.

What is the dictionary definition of Crime-Fraud Exception?
Dictionary Definition of Crime-Fraud Exception

The crime-fraud exception is a regulation that prohibits lawyers from maintaining confidentiality regarding discussions with their clients if those discussions involve criminal activities or fraud. In other words, if a lawyer becomes aware that their client intends to engage in illegal behaviour, they are not allowed to keep that information confidential. This exception is significant as it serves to prevent lawyers from aiding their clients in unlawful actions.

Full Definition Of Crime-Fraud Exception

The crime-fraud exception is a notable doctrine in the realm of legal privilege. Privilege, primarily attorney-client privilege, is a cornerstone of the legal profession, ensuring that communications between lawyers and their clients remain confidential. However, this privilege is not absolute. One significant limitation is the crime-fraud exception, which negates the privilege if the communication or legal advice is used to further a crime or fraud. This overview explores the doctrine’s historical background, legal principles, application, and notable cases within the context of British law.

Historical Background

The concept of legal privilege dates back centuries, with roots in Roman law and mediaeval England. The idea was to promote open communication between clients and their legal advisors. However, the notion that privilege should not shield illicit activities also emerged early. The crime-fraud exception can be traced to cases where the courts recognised that allowing privilege in such circumstances would be contrary to public policy and justice.

Legal Principles

The crime-fraud exception operates under the premise that the sanctity of attorney-client communications should not extend to discussions intended to further criminal or fraudulent activities. The underlying principle is that privilege should facilitate the administration of justice, not obstruct it. Key legal principles underpinning the crime-fraud exception include:

  • Scope of Privilege: Privilege generally covers communications made to obtain legal advice. However, this protection is void if the advice is sought or used to perpetrate a crime or fraud.
  • The burden of proof: The party asserting the crime-fraud exception bears the burden of proving that the privilege should be set aside. This requires demonstrating a prima facie case of crime or fraud.
  • Threshold of Evidence: Courts require sufficient evidence to establish that the exception applies. This does not necessitate proving the crime or fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather shows that the communication was in furtherance of illegal conduct.
  • Judicial Scrutiny: The judiciary carefully scrutinises claims of crime fraud to balance the need for confidentiality with the imperative of justice.

Application of the Crime-Fraud Exception in British Law

In the UK, the crime-fraud exception is recognised and applied under common law principles and statutory provisions. Key legislative frameworks include the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), which provide mechanisms for investigating and addressing crime-fraud scenarios.

  1. Common Law: British courts have developed the crime-fraud exception through case law, emphasising that privilege cannot be used to shield criminal or fraudulent activity. Landmark cases have shaped the understanding and application of this doctrine.
  2. Statutory Frameworks: Statutes like PACE and POCA provide specific provisions enabling law enforcement to access privileged communications in the context of criminal investigations, subject to judicial oversight.
  3. Judicial Decisions: Courts have consistently upheld the principle that privilege is void if used to facilitate crime or fraud. Case law demonstrates a rigorous approach to assessing whether the exception applies, ensuring that the justice system is not abused.

Notable Cases

Several significant cases illustrate the application and evolution of the crime-fraud exception in British law:

  • R v Derby Magistrates’ Court, ex parte B [1996] AC 487: This House of Lords decision affirmed that legal privilege is a fundamental right but recognised exceptions, including the crime-fraud doctrine. The case underscored that privilege is not absolute when communications are used for illicit purposes.
  • JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2014] EWCA Civ 602: In this case, the Court of Appeal considered the crime-fraud exception in the context of fraudulent asset concealment. The court held that privilege could not protect communications intended to further the fraud, demonstrating a robust application of the exception.
  • Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd (2018) EWCA Civ 2006: This case involved the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) seeking access to privileged documents during an investigation. The Court of Appeal applied the crime-fraud exception, highlighting the importance of ensuring that privilege does not obstruct criminal investigations.
  • Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 6) [2004] UKHL 48: This House of Lords decision examined the scope of legal advice privilege and its exceptions. The ruling reinforced the principle that privilege is subject to the crime-fraud exception when communicating further criminal activities.

Practical Considerations

  • Legal Practitioners: Lawyers must be vigilant in ensuring that their advice is not used to further illegal activities. They should be aware of the crime-fraud exception and its implications for client communications.
  • Clients: Clients should understand that while legal privilege is a vital protection, it does not extend to activities involving crime or fraud. Transparency with legal advisors is crucial, but they must not misuse legal advice for illicit purposes.
  • Law Enforcement: Authorities must navigate the balance between respecting privilege and addressing crime or fraud. The crime-fraud exception provides a vital tool for ensuring that privilege does not hinder justice.
  • Judiciary: Courts play a crucial role in assessing claims of crime fraud. Judicial oversight ensures that the exception is applied judiciously, safeguarding both the integrity of privilege and the administration of justice.

Challenges and Controversies

The crime-fraud exception is not without challenges and controversies. Balancing the need for confidentiality with the imperative of justice can be complex. Key issues include:

  • Threshold of Proof: Determining the threshold of evidence required to invoke the exception can be contentious. The courts must carefully assess the evidence without undermining the principle of privilege.
  • Scope of Application: Defining the scope of the exception, particularly in complex cases involving multiple jurisdictions or sophisticated fraud schemes, can be challenging. Courts must navigate these complexities to ensure just outcomes.
  • Evolving Legal Landscape: As crime and fraud evolve, so too must the application of the exception. Technological advancements and new forms of criminal activity require ongoing legal adaptation.
  • Ethical Considerations: Lawyers must balance their duty to clients with their ethical obligations to the justice system. Navigating these ethical dilemmas requires careful consideration and adherence to professional standards.

Comparative Perspectives

The crime-fraud exception is not unique to British law; it is recognised in various legal systems worldwide. Comparative perspectives highlight both similarities and differences in the application of this doctrine.

  • United States: In the US, the crime-fraud exception is well-established, with courts requiring a prima facie showing that communications furthered a crime or fraud. Key cases, such as United States v. Zolin, have shaped the application of the exception.
  • Canada: Canadian courts also recognise the crime-fraud exception, emphasising that privilege cannot shield illegal activities. The Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the doctrine in cases like R v. Campbell, underscoring its importance in ensuring justice.
  • European Union: EU member states generally recognise the crime-fraud exception, although the specifics may vary. The European Court of Justice has addressed privilege and its limitations in cases involving cross-border legal issues.
  • Australia: Australian law incorporates the crime-fraud exception, with courts applying the doctrine to prevent misuse of privilege. Notable cases, such as AWB Ltd v. Cole, illustrate the application of the exception in the Australian context.


The crime-fraud exception is a crucial doctrine in British law, ensuring that the principle of legal privilege is not misused to further criminal or fraudulent activities. By carefully balancing the need for confidentiality with the imperative of justice, the exception upholds the integrity of the legal system. Legal practitioners, clients, law enforcement, and the judiciary all play vital roles in navigating the complexities of this doctrine. While challenges and controversies persist, the crime-fraud exception remains a fundamental safeguard in the pursuit of justice. Its application continues to evolve, reflecting the dynamic nature of crime, fraud, and the legal landscape.

Crime-Fraud Exception FAQ'S

The crime-fraud exception is a legal doctrine that allows for the disclosure of otherwise confidential communications or documents when they are used to further a crime or fraud.

The crime-fraud exception applies when a communication or document is made in furtherance of a crime or fraud, such as planning or carrying out illegal activities.

The crime-fraud exception covers a wide range of criminal activities, including but not limited to fraud, money laundering, bribery, and conspiracy.

The crime-fraud exception can be invoked by a party seeking to disclose otherwise confidential information, such as a prosecutor, a government agency, or even a private individual who has evidence of a crime or fraud.

To invoke the crime-fraud exception, the party seeking disclosure must provide evidence that there is a reasonable basis to believe that a crime or fraud has been committed and that the communication or document in question was made in furtherance of that illegal activity.

Yes, attorney-client communications can be subject to the crime-fraud exception if they are made in furtherance of a crime or fraud. However, it is important to note that the exception is narrowly applied and does not automatically waive attorney-client privilege.

Yes, the crime-fraud exception can be used to obtain evidence in a criminal trial if the communication or document in question meets the criteria for invoking the exception.

Yes, the crime-fraud exception can also be used in civil cases to obtain evidence that is relevant to proving a crime or fraud.

If the crime-fraud exception is successfully invoked, the otherwise confidential communication or document can be disclosed and used as evidence in legal proceedings.

Yes, there are limitations to the crime-fraud exception. It is a narrow exception that requires a showing of a reasonable basis to believe that a crime or fraud has been committed. Additionally, the exception does not apply to all types of confidential communications, such as those protected by attorney-client privilege or certain statutory privileges.

Related Phrases
No related content found.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 8th June 2024.

Cite Term

To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.

  • Page URL:
  • Modern Language Association (MLA):Crime-Fraud Exception. DLS Solicitors. June 23 2024
  • Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Crime-Fraud Exception. DLS Solicitors. (accessed: June 23 2024).
  • American Psychological Association (APA):Crime-Fraud Exception. Retrieved June 23 2024, from website:
Avatar of DLS Solicitors
DLS Solicitors : Family Law Solicitors

Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.

All author posts