Tipping off under POCA: the first Court of Appeal authority arrives

TLT picks out the key points you shouldn't miss...

What's this about?

The Court of Appeal has delivered the first appellate guidance on the tipping off offence in section 333A(3) POCA and granted leave for the judgment to be cited. The judgment provides important clarification for regulated firms on when disclosure of an investigation may amount to tipping off and how the offence will be interpreted in practice.

Ben Cooper, Partner in Risk and Financial Crime, says...

"Many firms view tipping off as a relatively settled area of AML compliance. What makes Osmond different is that the Court of Appeal has now provided authoritative guidance on how the offence operates in practice and has granted leave for the judgment to be cited. The case is likely to become a leading authority for firms dealing with law enforcement enquiries, regulator requests and customer communications in a financial crime context."

What the judgment tells us...

1. The specific investigation matters

Mr Osmond argued that the relevant SFO investigation was the wider ENRC investigation, which was already public and known to the client. The Court of Appeal rejected that approach. The prosecution was entitled to put its case on the basis that the disclosure concerned the SFO's investigation into suspected money laundering connected with the 10 Hays Mews transaction. That specific investigation was capable of being protected even though it sat within the context of a broader ENRC investigation.

The point is important for regulated firms. It will not always be enough to say that a client already knows about a wider investigation, enforcement action or market event. A particular transaction, account, payment flow, customer relationship or information request may still be a protected strand of enquiry.

2. The source of the information is not the answer

The Court of Appeal also rejected the argument that the information was outside the tipping off offence because it came from the SFO rather than from the firm's own reporting process. The court said section 333A(3) is not concerned with the source of the information, but with the capacity in which the person receives it.

That is a significant compliance point. Follow-up contact from the SFO, NCA, FCA, HMRC or another authority may still create a tipping off risk if the information is received in the course of a regulated business. Firms should not treat authority-originated information as safe to share with the customer or client simply because the authority made the first move.

3. Actual prejudice does not have to be proved

The judgment confirms that the prosecution does not need to show that the investigation was actually prejudiced. The question is whether the disclosure was likely to prejudice the investigation at the time it was made. The court also observed that disclosure to a target is inherently likely to prejudice an investigation because of the risk that evidence may be destroyed or compromised, or that an offender may seek to evade justice.

This is where much of the practical risk sits. In real time, firms may not know whether a disclosure will cause actual harm. The safer operating assumption is that giving the client advance notice of an authority's interest may create prejudice unless a clear legal basis for disclosure has been identified and properly documented.

4. Historic work can still bring the issue within the regulated sector

Mr Osmond had acted on the underlying transaction years before the SFO contact. That did not matter. The Court of Appeal held that the information came to him in the course of a business in the regulated sector because he received it in his capacity as solicitor to the client and because the underlying work involved real property, companies and client money.

The practical lesson is that firms should not focus only on whether the current instruction is regulated. Historic transactional work, dormant client relationships or follow-up enquiries about closed matters can still create regulated-sector issues, particularly where the firm is contacted because of the role it previously performed.

5. Investigation response protocols need to cover client handling

One of the striking features of the case is how quickly the issue arose. The SFO first contacted Mr Osmond by telephone. He then contacted the client the following day, travelled to meet him and continued to discuss the SFO correspondence with him. The court noted that the information sent to the SFO was therefore the product of discussions with the client, not simply Mr Osmond's independent recollection.

For firms, this underlines the need for clear internal escalation rules. Staff receiving enquiries from authorities should know not only who to escalate to internally, but also that client communications may need to be paused until the AML, legal, privilege and investigation response issues have been assessed.

6. The forgery finding is a separate warning on documents

The appeal also failed on the forgery conviction. The SFO had requested the engagement letter for the transaction. Mr Osmond did not have one and created a backdated document which purported to be a contemporaneous letter of engagement. The Court of Appeal held that deceiving, or attempting to deceive, a public official carrying out a criminal investigation can be in connection with the performance of a duty.

The point is obvious but worth saying. If documents do not exist, the answer is that they do not exist. Creating documents to fill a gap, improve the file or make the position look more orderly can turn a difficult regulatory issue into a criminal one.

The wider significance

Courts rarely comments specifically on whether a judgment should be cited. Here, it recognised that the case addresses an area on which there has been limited appellate authority and granted leave for the judgment to be cited in future proceedings.

For regulated firms, that means the principles confirmed in Osmond are likely to carry significant weight when courts, prosecutors, regulators and compliance professionals consider the scope of the tipping off offence in future cases.

What this means for regulated firms

Osmond is not just a case for solicitors. It is relevant to any business in the regulated sector that may receive enquiries from law enforcement, regulators or supervisory authorities about clients, customers, transactions or historic activity.

There are five clear takeaways:

Treat authority contact as a controlled event. The first response should be internal escalation and preservation of confidentiality, not client notification.
Identify the precise enquiry. A specific transaction or customer strand may be protected even if a wider investigation is already public.
Focus on capacity, not source. Information received from an authority can still fall within the tipping off regime if received in the course of regulated business.
Do not require proof of actual prejudice. The risk is whether disclosure is likely to prejudice the investigation at the time it is made.
Document the decision-making. If the business concludes that a communication can be made, the rationale and legal basis should be recorded clearly.

Our view

The important point in Osmond is not that every authority enquiry prevents all client communication. That would overstate the position. The more realistic point is that firms need a controlled process before anyone speaks to the client, relationship owner or other external party.

This judgment gives compliance teams and MLROs a useful Court of Appeal authority for a message that can otherwise feel cautious or inconvenient: once an authority has contacted the business about a client or transaction, confidentiality and escalation come first.

The firms best placed to manage that risk will be those that have practical playbooks covering authority contact, SAR follow-up, section 2 notices, regulator enquiries, customer communications, privilege and record-keeping. The issue usually arises under pressure. That is precisely why the response should be designed before the call comes in.

How TLT can help

TLT supports regulated firms with financial crime governance, AML systems and controls, investigation response and engagement with law enforcement and regulators.

We can help firms:

review and update tipping off and investigation response procedures;
design escalation protocols for authority contact and SAR follow-up;
train MLROs, legal teams and client-facing staff on tipping off risk;
advise on whether and how communications can be made to clients or customers;
support responses to SFO, NCA, FCA, HMRC and other authority enquiries; and
assess governance, record-keeping and evidential readiness in financial crime matters.

For regulated firms, Osmond is a timely prompt to check whether policies and training deal with the real-world moment when an authority contacts the business and someone wants to tell the client.

At a glance...

Publication link	[2026] EWCA Crim 979 - R v William Osmond
Publication date	28 July 2026
Who has published it?	Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Publication type	Judgment / case law update
What's it relevant to?	Tipping off, AML, POCA, regulated sector, solicitors, SFO enquiries, investigation response, MLROs, authority contact and financial crime controls
Key point	First Court of Appeal judgment on the section 333A(3) tipping off offence. The court granted leave for the judgment to be cited, making it likely to become a leading authority on the scope of the offence.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at August 2026. For more information see our terms & conditions.

No items found.

Written by