Preparing for extended POCA powers

Ruth Paley considers the potential changes we can expect from the POCA update, and what compliance teams can do to get ready for them.

The UK government is considering extending investigatory powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) to a number of additional public bodies. While framed as an extension of authorised financial investigator powers, the proposal reflects and exemplifies a broader shift in how POCA is deployed across the UK enforcement landscape.

The Home Office consultation on the proposal closed in January 2026, with the government now analysing responses. If the policy proceeds, the change would likely be set to be implemented through secondary legislation, designating the relevant bodies as authorised financial investigators under POCA.

For organisations operating in affected sectors, this proposal represents more than just a technical legislative development: it will impact how certain regulatory issues are escalated into asset recovery investigations. Firms who take proactive steps to understand the implications now will be better placed to manage the risks if these powers are introduced.

POCA’s growing role in the regulatory landscape

POCA is one of the most powerful enforcement frameworks available to UK authorities, providing a broad range of tools designed to identify, freeze and recover the proceeds of crime. These include restraint orders, asset freezing mechanisms, confiscation proceedings, civil recovery actions, search and seizure powers, and money laundering investigations.

Historically, the main bodies authorised to exercise these powers have been traditional law enforcement agencies such as the police, the National Crime Agency, and HM Revenue and Customs. Although the list of authorised financial investigators has expanded over time, these extensions have generally remained within the law enforcement ‘family’, usually to organisations that already possess criminal investigation capability and experience of asset recovery.

The current proposal marks a clear departure from this model. The amendments, proposing POCA investigatory powers for the Forestry Commission, the Intellectual Property Office, and the Immigration Advice Authority, would represent a notably material shift rather than an incremental expansion. Whilst these organisations play important roles in regulation and oversight, their core functions have historically been administrative or supervisory rather than focused on criminal investigations.

Extending investigation powers to regulators of this kind reflects a wider shift in how enforcement bodies use POCA. Increasingly, POCA is being used as a general enforcement tool across the regulatory landscape, not simply as a mechanism for tackling organised crime.

Increasingly, POCA is being used as a general enforcement tool across the regulatory landscape, not simply as a mechanism for tackling organised crime.

Are new investigators ready to exercise these powers?

One of the key questions raised by the consultation is whether newly authorised bodies will be properly equipped to use POCA powers effectively.

POCA investigations are legally complex and procedurally demanding. Successful applications for restraint must demonstrate reasonable grounds to suspect that criminal conduct has generated recoverable property, and to persuade the court that freezing assets is justified. Search and seizure powers require careful handling of evidential material, and an understanding of issues such as legal professional privilege and mixed material.

In this context, experience and awareness are key. Knowing when restraint is justified, understanding how to frame reasonable grounds, and how to deal with sensitive material requires judgement that is typically developed through regular exposure to criminal investigations and litigation.

It’s important to recognise that the bodies included in the consultation have deep sector expertise. The Intellectual Property Office, for example, has extensive experience dealing with complex intellectual property infringements and counterfeit goods. The Forestry Commission is steeped in environmental regulation and land management.

However, sector expertise does not automatically translate into the ability to run a criminal investigation or POCA litigation. Many of these regulators will have had little or no previous experience in asset restraint proceedings, confiscation processes, or money laundering investigations. For that reason, the success of the proposed reforms will depend heavily on how they are implemented in practice.

The importance of safeguards

The consultation recognises that any extension of POCA powers must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards.

Judicial oversight remains central. Powers such as restraint orders and search warrants require court approval, ensuring that legal thresholds are properly tested and that investigative action is proportionate.

Training will also be critical, across the organisation as a whole, but particularly in any new investigative function. Newly authorised bodies and their investigators will need specialist training not only in POCA itself, but also in the wider legal frameworks governing criminal investigation, evidence gathering, and disclosure obligations.

Strong internal governance will also be important. Regulators exercising both supervisory and investigative roles will need clear structures separating those functions. Decisions to pursue POCA investigations should involve senior oversight and well-defined escalation processes.

In practice, cooperation with established law enforcement agencies may also remain important, particularly during the early stages of implementation, and some regulators may prefer to work alongside organisations with greater experience of asset recovery litigation.

POCA is a technically demanding regime, and so the principal risk is not so much that the newly authorised bodies will misuse the new powers, but instead likely to surface in overreach or procedural error. Recent issues involving the Post Office will no doubt be top of mind for new entrants, illustrating the importance of robust safeguards and careful oversight, particularly where investigation output relies on complex systems or large volumes of data.

Issues that might once have remained within the supervisory or licensing sphere may now have the potential to escalate more quickly into POCA-driven investigations.

What this means for organisations

For both businesses and individuals, the most immediate consequence of the proposal is an expansion of enforcement risk.

POCA investigations can have significant consequences, including restraint orders and immediate asset freezes, which may bring with them extensive disclosure requirements and financial scrutiny. In some cases, organisations may face parallel civil and criminal exposure.

Any extension of these powers to additional regulators will result in organisations encountering POCA investigations in circumstances where previously only regulatory or administrative enforcement might have been expected.

Issues that might once have remained within the supervisory or licensing sphere may now have the potential to escalate more quickly into POCA-driven investigations.

It is also important to recognise that some of POCA’s most powerful asset recovery tools operate on a civil standard of proof, rather than the criminal standard. Powers such as account freezing orders, account forfeiture orders, and cash forfeiture proceedings can be obtained on the basis that property is suspected to be recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct. These tools can therefore be deployed relatively early in an investigation and do not require a criminal conviction.

For organisations and individuals, this means that significant asset disruption may arise even where no criminal charge has been brought. In practice, this also raises important questions of proportionality, particularly where draconian asset-freezing measures are deployed at an early stage of an investigation, before the underlying issues have been fully tested. Compliance teams should therefore be alert to the practical impact of these powers and the lower evidential threshold that may apply.

The challenge of consistency

Another issue raised by the consultation is the potential for inconsistent application of POCA powers between the multiple bodies which use them.

The legislation contains a number of legal thresholds requiring judgement from investigators and courts. The exercise of determining whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal conduct, for example, often involves nuanced factual analysis.

If different regulators apply those thresholds inconsistently, the result could be uncertainty for businesses and individuals subject to investigation.

Consistency therefore matters not only for fairness, but also for regulatory credibility. Clear guidance, robust governance arrangements, and effective training will be important in ensuring that newly authorised bodies apply POCA powers in a proportionate and consistent manner.

Organisations do not need to wait for legislative change before considering the implications.

Practical steps for compliance teams

Organisations do not need to wait for legislative change before considering the implications. There are several broad, practical steps that compliance teams can start implementing now to prepare themselves and their organisations for a broader POCA enforcement environment.

Assess the firm’s regulatory risk through a POCA lens

• Review key regulatory risk areas and consider where alleged misconduct could generate financial benefit or criminal exposure.
• Pay particular attention to activities that could be interpreted as producing proceeds of crime.
• Ensure risk assessments recognise that regulatory breaches may now attract asset recovery scrutiny.

Enhance the firm’s internal investigation processes

• Ensure internal investigations are conducted with appropriate legal oversight where financial crime risks may arise.
• Identify when issues may require escalation or specialist advice.
• Consider whether investigation protocols should be adapted to provision for POCA exposure.

Revisit document management and privilege protocols

• Ensure legal professional privilege is clearly identified and protected in internal records.
• Review document retention and classification practices.
• Ensure teams understand how privileged material should be handled during regulatory investigations or searches.

Plan for asset restraint scenarios

• Consider how the organisation would respond if accounts or assets were frozen.
• Identify key operational dependencies such as banking arrangements and supplier payments.
• Understand/upskill on the legal processes available to challenge or vary restraint orders or freezing orders, and consider whether this changes anything from a BAU perspective.

Seek early specialist advice where concerns arise

• Recognise that POCA investigations can escalate quickly.
• Engage specialist advisers early where regulatory issues may involve financial benefit or asset recovery risks.
• Early advice can help manage interactions with investigators and protect the organisation’s legal position.

Looking ahead

The proposal to extend POCA investigatory powers reflects a broader trend in UK enforcement policy, which increasingly prioritises the use of asset recovery tools to address a wide range of economic and regulatory misconduct. If implemented, the reforms would further embed POCA within the UK’s regulatory framework.

For regulators, the challenge will be ensuring that these powers are exercised consistently, proportionately, and with appropriate expertise.

For organisations, the message is clear. The boundary between regulatory supervision and asset-focused criminal enforcement continues to blur and compliance frameworks must evolve accordingly: organisations that understand how POCA powers operate, and those with the foresight to anticipate where regulatory issues may escalate into asset-based investigations, will be significantly better placed to manage the risks that follow.