Section 250: Documented Diligence After Commencement

What the board should minute today

A board meeting on or shortly after 29 June 2026 should record at minimum four things.

First, that the board acknowledges Section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is now in force and that the provision applies to the firm.

Second, whether the firm completed a gap analysis before commencement. If yes: the reference to the evidence pack (document reference, date generated, SHA-256 hash if available). If not: acknowledgement that the analysis is to be completed, with a named responsible individual and a target date.

Third, the current state of the declaration cycle. How many individuals are in scope. How many have completed declarations. How many are outstanding. What the plan is for non-respondents.

Fourth, the renewal cadence: when the next gap analysis and declaration cycle are scheduled, and who is responsible for ensuring it runs.

A board that can point to a minute recording all four items has documented that the exposure is known at the highest level of the organisation and that the firm is managing it actively. That record is material to prosecutorial discretion even where no pre-commencement analysis exists.

Why post-commencement documentation still matters

The absence of a statutory defence to Section 250 is sometimes read as meaning that documentation cannot help. That reading is wrong.

There are two independent reasons why documented diligence matters after commencement.

The first is prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors — the SFO and CPS for the most serious matters — assess whether charging is in the public interest before any decision to prosecute. The Joint SFO-CPS guidance on corporate criminal liability confirms that documented compliance effort, the absence of concealment, and active co-operation with investigations are factors that weigh against charging. An organisation that can demonstrate it understood s.250, identified its population, and acted systematically is in a substantially different position from one that cannot produce any record at all.

The second is sentencing. Section 250 has no Sentencing Council guideline yet. When a guideline is developed, it may treat contemporaneous documentation as a mitigating factor (as comparable guidelines for corporate offences do). Even before a guideline exists, a sentencing court can take documented diligence into account as a mitigating circumstance in the exercise of its discretion.

Documented diligence is not a statutory shield. Presenting it as one would be wrong. But treating it as irrelevant would also be wrong. The honest framing is: it is material to prosecutorial discretion and may be relevant at sentencing, in ways that an undocumented firm cannot claim.

The first-prosecution outlook

As of 29 June 2026, there have been no prosecutions under Section 250. That is expected for a provision that came into force today.

The honest assessment of when the first prosecution might occur: the s.250 mechanism will most likely be engaged first where a senior manager of a corporate body has committed a serious criminal offence in connection with the business and the prosecution considers the corporate attribution to be publicly significant. Both the SFO and CPS have confirmed they are aware of the new provision. Neither has published specific Section 250 charging guidance as of this date.

When the first case does arise, the pre-commencement state of the firm will be relevant. A firm that has a complete evidence pack dated before 29 June 2026 has a documented record of its state before the provision came into force. A firm that has no record has nothing to show.

Firms should not treat the absence of any prosecution to date as a reason to defer documentation. The practical window for building a pre-commencement record closed today. Post-commencement documentation is still valuable — but it is not a substitute for the earlier work.

Integrating Section 250 into ongoing governance

After the initial gap analysis and declaration cycle, Section 250 compliance becomes an ongoing governance obligation, not a project. The practical steps to embed it are straightforward.

At the firm level: add s.250 scope review to the annual compliance calendar. Set declaration expiry reminders. Assign ownership to a named compliance officer. Ensure the board receives an annual update on the current s.250(3) population, the declaration cycle status, and any material changes.

At the people level: add s.250(3) scope assessment to the new-joiner process for every significant hire. Treat a role change that expands someone's decision-making authority as a trigger for reassessment. Treat leavers as a trigger for renewing the analysis of who has taken on their responsibilities.

At the document level: refresh the board evidence pack at each annual renewal. Keep the SHA-256 hash of each version on record. Retain previous packs — the historical record of who was in scope and when may be relevant if an old matter surfaces years later.

Section 250 does not have a one-off solution. It has an ongoing management requirement. The firms that treat today as the beginning of a governance cycle rather than the end of a project will be better positioned in the years ahead.

Related articles

Sources

• Crime and Policing Act 2026, s.250www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/20/section/250
• Crime and Policing Act 2026, s.255 — commencementwww.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2026/20/section/255
• FCA — Senior Managers and Certification Regimewww.fca.org.uk/firms/senior-managers-certification-regime