What is "tipping off"?
Tipping off is a criminal offence whereby a person is warned that an investigation is underway. The offence can only be committed by certain people who have access to privileged information and only applies to certain types of investigation.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Osmond [2026] EWCA Crim 979 provides important guidance and shows us that a person may commit the offence by revealing a confidential strand of an investigation even when the existence of a much wider investigation is already public knowledge.
What are the two forms of tipping off?
Section 333A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 creates two related offences. The first concerns disclosure that a suspicious activity report, or another disclosure under Part 7 of the Act, has been made. The second concerns disclosure that an investigation into an alleged Part 7 money-laundering offence is being contemplated or carried out.
In each form, the information must have come to the defendant in the course of a business in the regulated sector and the disclosure must be likely to prejudice the relevant investigation. The Act also protects a person who did not know or suspect that the disclosure was likely to have that prejudicial effect. The precise route alleged therefore matters: the prosecution must identify what was disclosed, the investigation said to be at risk and the capacity in which the information was received.
Who is in the regulated sector?
The regulated sector covers a range of businesses exposed to money-laundering risk, including banks and other financial institutions, accountants, auditors, tax advisers, estate agents, trust or company service providers and parts of the legal profession. For solicitors, the definition does not automatically cover every piece of legal work. It applies to the extent that the practice carries out specified activities such as property or business transactions, managing client money, opening or managing accounts, or creating and operating companies and trusts.
What happened in R v Osmond?
William Osmond was a senior solicitor who had acted in a Mayfair property transaction involving approximately £4 million passing through his firm’s client account. Years later, the Serious Fraud Office told him that its investigation into alleged money laundering included the funding of that particular property purchase. The wider investigation was well publicised, but the specific focus on the property transaction was not known to his client.
The SFO sought information and documents and asked for confidentiality. Osmond told his client about the enquiry, travelled abroad to meet him and discussed the investigation with his client. Osmond was convicted of tipping off and of a separate forgery offence. He received a nine-month prison sentence, which was suspended for 18 months.
A confidential strand can remain protected
The central argument on appeal was that no meaningful disclosure had occurred because the broader SFO investigation was already widely known. The Court of Appeal rejected that approach. The prosecution was entitled to identify the relevant investigation at a more specific level: the suspected laundering connected with the property transaction.
A disclosure means, at least, telling the recipient something they did not already know. Knowledge of the general investigation did not amount to knowledge that this particular transaction and its funding were under scrutiny. Otherwise, public reporting of a broad enquiry could leave every confidential line within it unprotected. The practical question is therefore not simply, “Was there already an investigation?” but, “What new information about its scope, target or direction was communicated?”
The source of the information is not decisive
Osmond also argued that the information came from the SFO, rather than arising from his regulated work. The Court of Appeal held that the important question was the capacity in which he received it. He was approached because he had acted as solicitor in a transaction involving property, companies and client money. That was sufficient to connect the information with his business in the regulated sector.
This is an important compliance point. Information need not originate in a client file or a suspicious activity report. A request, notice or conversation from investigators can itself supply the sensitive information, provided it reaches the recipient through their regulated professional role.
It has to be said that we here at Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors find this a surprising approach to take. Dealing with a legal obligation relating to a client’s case is quite obviously part and parcel of the work of a solicitor. It is surprising to us that anybody would attempt to argue it is not. Their Lordships at the Court of Appeal were equally scathing about the merits of that line of reasoning.
There was also an extremely bold assertion that a Serious Fraud Office investigator requesting information from a solicitor as part of an ongoing investigation is not acting in the performance of his duty and thus that Osmond could not have been guilty by supplying a forged document to him. The Court of Appeal also dismissed that ground of appeal in very short order.
What does ‘likely to prejudice’ mean?
The prosecution does not have to prove that the investigation was actually damaged. The likelihood of prejudice is assessed at the time of the disclosure. In Osmond, alerting the person whose transaction was being examined created an obvious risk of interference: evidence could be altered or destroyed, accounts could be coordinated, or the target could take steps to evade scrutiny.
The court described disclosure of an investigation to its target as inherently capable of prejudicing it. Context nevertheless remains crucial. The prosecution must prove a likelihood of harm or disadvantage, together with knowledge or suspicion on the defendant’s part that the disclosure was likely to have that effect.
Their Lordships dismissed the appeal saying it was completely “unarguable”, which is judge-speak for “this is complete nonsense”.
Is an express warning required?
No. A warning from the police, SFO or another authority that information is confidential may be powerful evidence, but it is not an element of the offence. In Osmond, the written request referred expressly to tipping off, but the Court of Appeal made clear that the legislation does not require investigators to give such a warning.
Are any disclosures permitted?
The Act contains tightly defined exceptions for certain disclosures within organisations or groups, between specified professionals or institutions, to supervisory or law-enforcement authorities, and for particular purposes connected with preventing or investigating crime. There is also protection for certain legal advisers communicating with a client for the purpose of dissuading the client from criminal conduct.
These exceptions are technical and fact sensitive. They do not create a general permission to tell a client that a report has been made or that investigators are interested in them. If there is doubt, the safer course is to pause, record the proposed communication and obtain specialist advice before anything is said.
What are the consequences?
Tipping off is a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment on indictment, an unlimited fine, or both. There is also likely to be serious fallout from professionals’ regulators following a conviction.
How Chetwode can help
Tipping-off cases sit at the intersection of criminal law, professional duties and anti-money-laundering compliance. Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors can advise regulated professionals and businesses on urgent communications, preserve privilege, analyse whether the statutory elements are met and provide strategic representation throughout an investigation. Early advice is particularly valuable before a response is sent or a client is contacted, when the risk may still be managed without compromising the enquiry.
Contact Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors today for a serious conversation with a solicitor who can help you.