(1)A person who contravenes section 21(1) is guilty of an offence and liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.
(2)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show—
(a)that he believed on reasonable grounds that the content of the communication was prepared, or approved for the purposes of section 21 in accordance with subsection (2A) of that section , by an authorised person; or
(b)that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
Cases considering section 25 (5)
[2008] EWCA Crim 1214 · 13 May 2008
The court applied section 25 as the offence of which the appellants were convicted. It confirmed that the offence is one of strict liability, subject to statutory defences, so dishonesty is unnecessary for liability but gross recklessness may increase culpability on sentence (see paras [1]; [14]).
[2022] EWCA Civ 397 · 25 March 2022Interprets
The reasonable-belief defence concerning preparation or approval by an authorised person supported the conclusion that the absence of such approval is part of what makes the conduct a contravention. (see para [35])
[2010] EWCA Crim 709 · 31 March 2010Limits
The court used the two-year maximum for contravening section 21 in assessing the statutory maximum for the corresponding conspiracy. It did not cap a consecutive sentence for laundering conduct which added culpability. (see paras [3]; [16]; [24(e)]-[24(f)])
What each judgment says about section 25 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.
69.This section provides that it is an offence to breach the financial promotion prohibition. The sanctions are the same as those which apply under section 23 for a breach of the general prohibition.
70.Subsection (2) provides a defence for a person accused of the offence if he can prove either that he believed on reasonable grounds that the content of the communication was prepared or approved by an authorised person, or that he exercised due diligence and took reasonable precautions to avoid committing the offence.