Chapter 1: Multi-Jurisdictional Investigation Management
Financial crime allegations often trigger simultaneous investigations across multiple jurisdictions. This complicates the management of investigations, and requires a strategy to manage it successfully.
Why financial crime investigations often extend across borders
There are various reasons why investigations span multiple jurisdictions. Global companies have offices in many countries, and an investigation into the company as a whole may require evidence from every office.
Even if a company has only one office in one country, the proceeds of financial crime may end up elsewhere, extending the investigation beyond borders. For example, those involved in money laundering often move money from one country to another to make it more difficult for investigators to trace the funds and identify the wrongdoers. In other scenarios, people have set up offshore shell companies to avoid paying taxes.
Financial crime is sophisticated, and designed to exploit jurisdictions with more lax compliance. Criminals will strive to find countries with regulatory leniency and weaker enforcement procedures.
In cases involving high net worth individuals, investigations stretch across borders because these people usually have complex financial footprints. They have property, assets, and investments in multiple countries. Often assets are held in layered trusts, or offshore companies, or other complex ownership structures.
Understanding the legal complexities of multi-jurisdictional cases
Once an investigation becomes multi-jurisdictional, local agencies in each country become involved. Companies are often faced with the difficulty of responding to various agency requests at the same time.
There are also practical difficulties in gathering evidence from multiple sites, and collating them in a single repository. People will need to be interviewed in different countries.
Where there is more than one legal system in play, it may raise questions about which country has jurisdiction over the case, and which procedures should be followed.
How different legal systems approach financial crime enforcement
Different countries have different methods of investigating financial crime. However, there are some commonalities.
Many jurisdictions enforce preventative measures, such as enhanced due diligence on clients, monitoring programmes, suspicious activity reporting, and ways to verify the source of funds.
The Financial Action Task Force sets standards that many jurisdictions follow. Enhanced due diligence for high risk customers is one of their standards, and discerning the ultimate beneficial owner of funds is another.
In the United States, the FBI takes the lead in investigating white collar crime and liaises with other agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In the UK, multiple agencies are involved. The Serious Fraud Office investigates and prosecutes large and complex corporate fraud and corruption. The National Crime Agency has extensive civil recovery powers and can freeze or recover assets in the UK. The Financial Conduct Authority enforces anti-money laundering requirements, and imposes civil sanctions for misconduct.
These agencies have extra-territorial powers, which can be used in cross-border investigations.
The over-arching idea in a cross-border investigation is that all the agencies collaborate. They share intelligence, and leads. This co-operation is underpinned by multilateral agreements, bilateral partnerships, and treaties which support co-operation between agencies in different countries.
Managing conflicting laws and regulatory requirements
As different agencies strive to enforce local laws and regulatory requirements, they may find that conflict arises between them and their respective agencies in different countries. To circumvent this, agencies can issue a formal request for Mutual Legal Assistance. This is a process through which agencies are compelled to share evidence in criminal investigations.
Conflicting jurisdictions can also raise issues regarding the extradition of individuals for prosecution. Local courts will need to agree to the extradition of certain individuals, but it can be difficult to gain such agreement if there is no mutually-recognised offence.
What to do if you face simultaneous investigations in multiple countries
If you’re facing a global investigation, you’ll need a team of expert counsel. Usually it is best to instruct a leading firm of solicitors in the jurisdiction you live in. Where support is needed for local laws in other jurisdictions, your solicitors will likely have contacts of preferred firms with which they can work. Your solicitors will also have contacts with forensic accountants, and other experts you might need on the team.
Your team of experts will create a centralised strategy to co-ordinate the investigation. They work with law enforcement, regulatory bodies, and financial institutions to manage the investigation effectively.
Working with local and international legal advisors
Your lawyers will work with local agencies, and international legal advisors to share information, and gather evidence.
Local investigators will want to interview people in their own jurisdiction though. That means that local solicitors should be present at those interviews to protect the position of any interviewees, and to stay appraised of all the facts in the case.
Preventing legal missteps that could worsen your case
The impact of an investigation can be very serious, and can threaten your reputation.
However, agencies value co-operation and transparency. People who provide assistance to an investigator or prosecutor may be given more lenient treatment than would otherwise have been the case.
Similarly, self-reporting will stand an organisation in good stead with the authorities. If an organisation self-reports instances of potential criminality, then they will stand a greater chance of negotiating a deferred prosecution agreement or other more lenient penalties.
The key consideration is to get experienced lawyers on board as quickly as possible. They can advise on a strategy for the investigation, and minimise any damage to your reputation and profits.
Chapter 2 - Tax investigations across borders
With increased global cooperation on tax transparency, HNWIs and international businesses face heightened scrutiny from tax authorities such as HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in the UK, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the US, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tax bodies, and European Union (EU) financial regulators.
How cross-border tax investigations are triggered
Some cross-border tax investigations are selected randomly, but this is only a very small proportion. HMRC selects around 7% of their tax investigations at random.
More commonly, tax investigations are triggered by some sort of wrongdoing, mistakes on accounts, or a tip-off. Issues that may trigger an investigation include:
- Inconsistent reporting of payroll or benefits
- Discrepancies in tax returns
- Unusual expense claims
- Late payments
- Undeclared income
- The existence of offshore accounts
- Income from property
HMRC has a particular focus on challenging cross-border structures which may have a detrimental impact on the UK tax base, such as offshore accounts.
Understanding FATCA, CRS, and global tax transparency rules
The authorities share information across jurisdictions, in order to delve into the full picture of an individual’s or a company’s accounts.
This is made possible through global information-sharing agreements. For example, HMRC can receive international banking data from foreign institutions, which will show any foreign interest income, and deposits from other countries.
The Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) is a global framework that facilitates the automatic exchange of tax-related information between countries. FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) and CRS ((the Common Reporting Standard) are two forms of this framework.
FATCA is the US legislation that requires financial institutions which are not in the US to report information on financial accounts that are held by US citizens to the US tax authorities. CRS is equivalent to a global version of FATCA. It requires financial institutions to report information on accounts held by ‘tax residents of Reportable Jurisdictions’.
Furthermore, many countries have in place Double Tax Treaties, which are agreements between countries that are designed to avoid double taxation and prevent tax evasion.
These frameworks make it easier to share information across different jurisdictions, so that even minor discrepancies in tax filing can trigger investigations.
What to do if you’re under investigation for offshore tax issues
Tax authorities have been focused on the use of offshore companies and tax havens for some time. It’s not illegal to use offshore accounts, but this can attract the attention of HMRC if it appears to be a practice that is being used solely for the purposes of avoiding taxes.
With the agreements in place between jurisdictions to share information internationally, it has become more difficult to keep these arrangements a secret.
If you have come under investigation for use of offshore accounts, then cooperation and transparency is key. Prepare a response to the questions raised by the authority, and share all of the relevant documentation. Answer any follow-up questions promptly. By cooperating with the authorities you reduce the risk of potential penalties.
Responding to tax disputes and avoiding criminal charges
If you’re involved in a dispute over tax, you will need to disclose all the relevant information to HMRC. At this stage, it’s wise to instruct an accountant to calculate the tax you owe, plus any interest and penalties.
Once you have a figure, you may be able to begin negotiations with the tax authority and reach a settlement.
Legal defences against international tax evasion allegations
Tax evasion is a criminal offence, and it is difficult to defend yourself against such an allegation if the behaviour was deliberately deceptive.
However, if it was an honest mistake which led to a discrepancy in your tax, then it is possible to rectify the mistake, pay what you owe, and avoid prison time. You may still receive a fine, but the punishment will not be as severe as it would have been if you were convicted for tax evasion.
It may also be a defence to say that you relied on professional advice. Tax rules are complicated and most people, especially those with complex estates, will require professional support to manage their tax affairs. If the professionals have got it wrong, the authorities may struggle to hold you liable for the mistake.
Regularising tax compliance to avoid future investigations
Good practice will help you keep your tax affairs on track and avoid future investigations.
To achieve this, you should:
- Develop robust transfer pricing policies that comply with local regulations
- Structure cross-border operations to be compliant with international tax laws
- Maintain appropriate records
- Keep personal and business finances separate
- File returns on time
- Be realistic about your expenses claims
Careful and shrewd management of your tax affairs is not a crime, but using deception and dishonesty to evade tax is. Make sure you have professionals around you who know the difference and who can advise you accordingly.
Chapter 3 - Managing parallel investigations
Parallel investigations arise when multiple regulators or prosecuting authorities are taking action on the same or similar facts. This can lead to concurrent civil, criminal, or regulatory proceedings.
Parallel investigations are increasing as financial crime becomes multi-jurisdictional. Suspects are now commonly located in different jurisdictions, or subject to investigations from authorities in different jurisdictions.
There has also been a rise in regulation, giving authorities more power to investigate and collaborate with their counterparts in different countries.
The risks of facing multiple investigations at the same time
Multiple investigations can quickly become complicated. A department could be managing document requests from various agencies. This can become onerous if it is not managed effectively.
With different jurisdictions investigating, different laws may apply. An organisation that is being investigated needs to respond to demands of a regulator in a way that will not jeopardise their position with another.
When it comes to interviews, it may be the case that an interview is admissible in proceedings in one jurisdiction, but not in another. It will depend upon the laws in that country.
To manage these risks, and avoid the risk of self-incrimination, an organisation needs a co-ordinated legal strategy when it is under investigation in multiple countries.
How different regulatory bodies share information on cases
Agencies are able to share intelligence with each other on an informal or formal basis. The informal route is simple cooperation and information sharing. Sometimes, however, an agency will make a formal request for Mutual Legal Assistance to request information that is relevant to the investigation.
There are multiple agreements between countries to encourage authorities to share information and fight financial crime. For example, the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Taskforce came into being in 2025.
In June 2025, the SFO joined the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre (IACCC). By doing so, it strengthened the UK’s ability to tackle corruption and illicit finance across borders. The IACCC is based within the National Crime Agency and brings together law enforcement officers from agencies all around the world to deal with issues across jurisdictions.
Strategies to manage overlapping legal and financial scrutiny
Multiple agencies will seek the production of documents, and the organisation under scrutiny will be handling multiple requests simultaneously.
To avoid confusion, duplication, or inconsistency, limit the number of people who are replying to these requests. It is usually best for a small group of people to handle the requests, and it usually falls to your legal team.
You may choose to organise a data room that would be available to each agency.
The role of crisis management in parallel investigations
During parallel investigations, leadership time and energy is often diverted away from the day-to-day running of the business. The process is disruptive and can lead to business interruption and financial stability.
Amidst the practical disruption, the organisation needs to limit damage to its reputation. And stakeholders will be demanding answers.
With that in mind, the organisation needs a comprehensive crisis management plan that it can deploy in the event of parallel investigations.
Best practices for minimising global legal exposure
Best practice is to cooperate with the investigating authorities. To do this well, and to minimise the risk of inconsistent information, it’s best to keep the contact with the authorities to a small team of people, which is usually a centralised legal team.
They can manage multiple disclosure requests and demands for information, and will gather a collective knowledge of the various demands from different authorities.
Chapter.4 - International Evidence Gathering
Documents are collected from all relevant custodians, who may be located in different jurisdictions. Usually the documents are deposited into an e-disclosure platform for review. This is a large online platform, which allows reviewers to search for keywords, and review documents for relevance.
The documents will be reviewed in multiple languages, which will require reviewers in different countries, bi-lingual reviewers, or translators. Once key documents are identified, people may be selected for interviews based on their knowledge of the information in those documents.
Understanding Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and extradition laws
As a general rule, authorities are restricted from gathering evidence outside their jurisdiction. But most countries have entered into Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, which mean that authorities from different countries can help facilitate legal proceedings and provide mutual assistance in criminal matters.
The purpose of an MLAT is to provide reciprocated assistance in gathering legal evidence for the use by the requesting state in criminal investigations. This includes serving documents, taking testimony from individuals, and providing documents in response to a request.
Your legal rights when foreign authorities request evidence
Individuals have a right to speak to a lawyer before they answer any questions from an investigating authority.
You have the right to remain silent in some circumstances when the authority is questioning you. However, you should avoid conduct that could be seen as obstructing justice. A lawyer can help you walk this line.
How to challenge illegally obtained or misused evidence
Evidence that has been obtained illegally may still be admissible as evidence in criminal and civil courts in the UK. If a document is relevant to establishing the truth of what happened, then it will usually be admitted in evidence.
However, a party challenging the evidence could request costs sanctions against a party who obtained the evidence illegally.
A party may be able to challenge evidence if the Human Rights Act 1998 was breached to obtain it. For example, if there had been a breach of the person’s privacy, or emails were hacked to get the evidence. A breach of the data protection laws could carry criminal sanctions.
Navigating the disclosure of bank records, emails, and financial data
A UK court can issue a Bankers Trust Order (BTO), which compels a financial institution to disclose information that will help trace misappropriated assets. The financial institution is therefore able to disclose information without fear of repercussions.
However, if a BTO has not been issued, personal and confidential information may be redacted to honour banking secrecy and / or data protection laws.
Responding to subpoenas and requests for testimony
Subpoenas are issued by American authorities, but they can be served on corporate employees located outside of the United States. A subpoena allows a US court to demand the presence of a US citizen located in a foreign country to appear as a witness or produce a specific document.
If the recipient fails to comply, they could be in contempt of court. In those circumstances, the US courts have the power to seize property belonging to that person (if they have property in the US) or the person could be fined up to $100,000 for their contempt.
However, there is no US statute that authorises the US courts to subpoena a non-US citizen who is not located in the United States. The US authorities have no power to compel the presence of a foreign national residing outside America.
Legal strategies for protecting confidential business and personal data
Confidential information can be redacted if it is not relevant to the investigation. Similarly, personal data can be anonymised or redacted to avoid any breaches of data privacy laws. It is important to lean on the knowledge of local lawyers to understand compliance with data privacy laws in each jurisdiction.
On the e-disclosure platform, there are tools to assign rights on folders, and restrict access to certain people. This limits the potential exposure of confidential or personal data.
Some information will be privileged, and therefore not disclosable to certain parties. The information that is deemed to be privileged may vary from country to country, so again it is necessary to have a team of lawyers in various jurisdictions during a cross-border investigation.
Chapter.5 - Coordinating Global Legal Teams
Cross-border investigations are complex and fraught. It is important to have a global legal strategy to handle the investigation in the quickest and most efficient way possible, and reduce the chances of disruption to the business.
A strategy needs to be devised to both explain the matters that have led to the allegations and create a consistent defence across different jurisdictions, while still complying with local laws.
How to build a coordinated legal team across multiple jurisdictions
Investigations are specialist areas of law, and lawyers with experience in white collar crime will be needed in all of the countries that are implicated in the allegations.
Once a multi-jurisdictional team has been assembled, it needs to be decided who will formally lead the investigation. Often that decision is between in-house counsel or external lawyers. The decisions may come down to experience of investigations, but you should also consider the application of privilege.
In some jurisdictions, in-house counsel do not have the same wide protections of privilege that external lawyers carry. That means that, potentially, more confidential information may be exposed to scrutiny if in-house counsel are leading the investigation.
Managing communication between local and international lawyers
Local lawyers in each country play a vital role in supporting a company through a global investigation. They understand the local laws around data privacy and employee relations. But more than that, they can illuminate the idiosyncrasies of their jurisdiction.
In cross-border investigations, language barriers can arise. Even where lawyers are competent in another language, it can be difficult to understand and explain legal concepts if they do not exist in another country, or if they vary significantly from those in other countries.
The first task is to obtain accurate translations of the allegations against the company. While a translation tool can be helpful for the literal meaning of the words, a local lawyer can explain the meaning of the allegations, and suggest a defence strategy.
The lawyers and the business will also need a strategy for keeping stakeholders informed in a timely manner.
The role of crisis PR and reputation management during legal proceedings
Crisis PR varies from country to country. In some countries it is common practice to notify the press when an investigation is launched. But this could be seen as violating investigatory practice in other jurisdictions. Before making any moves to inform the press, check the local customs and laws to avoid unintended disclosures.
An organisation will generally want to control the narrative around an investigation, and say that it is cooperating fully.
Internally, the business should be preserving all information that may be relevant to the investigation. That means that any auto-delete functions should be suspended in all of the offices while the investigation is ongoing.
Key considerations for long-term global legal risk mitigation
Once an investigation is concluded, it’s worth spending time considering any lessons learned and how to prevent or mitigate future issues.
First, the organisation should fully remedy any issues that led to the investigation, and update any internal processes that were compromised. Employees that were involved in the wrongdoing will need to be disciplined, or dismissed, depending on their role in the underlying cause of the investigation.
It may be necessary to update the compliance systems to make them more robust.
Training is also a key factor in mitigating long-term global legal risk. Your employees should understand what white collar crime is, how to spot it, and how to prevent it. They should also be aware of your internal investigation protocols. During an investigation, business is disrupted. Which is why there should be a coherent business interruption plan in place that covers all situations relating to this, such as when key people are diverted from their day-to-day roles and have to dedicate significant time to the investigation.
Finally, given the importance of local counsel, it’s important to build a network of trusted lawyers in different jurisdictions with experience in white collar crime. Your global team can move with speed and manage an investigation efficiently.
