The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was introduced to combat slavery, servitude, forced labour, and human trafficking. It recognises that vulnerable people are often coerced or exploited into criminal activity, including financial crime.
Although a CIFAS marker is not a criminal conviction, the Act is highly relevant to many cases especially where individuals are pressured or manipulated into allowing their bank accounts to be used for fraud (so-called money mule activity).
Exploitation and Financial Crime #
Criminal gangs often exploit young people, students, and vulnerable adults by:
- Offering money in exchange for using their bank accounts.
- Forcing them through threats, violence, or manipulation to move criminal funds.
- Recruiting through social media, job adverts, or even personal networks.
In these cases, individuals may end up with a Misuse of Facility marker even though their actions were the result of exploitation rather than free choice.
Modern Slavery Act 2015 – Section 45 Defence #
The Act introduced a specific legal protection known as the Section 45 Defence. This applies where a person commits an offence because they were compelled to do so as a result of slavery or exploitation.
- For adults: They must show that they were compelled to commit the act, and that a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted in the same way.
- For children: The test is lower — they simply need to show that the act was a direct result of exploitation.
While Section 45 is a criminal defence, its principles are highly relevant in CIFAS challenges. If someone’s conduct was the product of coercion, it cannot properly be considered dishonest or intentional.
Relevance to CIFAS Markers #
- A CIFAS marker requires dishonesty and intent to misuse facilities or commit fraud.
- Where there is evidence of coercion, dishonesty and intent are absent.
- In such cases, the marker may be unfair and open to removal on grounds of proportionality and fairness.
CIFAS members are expected to consider vulnerability and coercion when filing cases. Failure to do so could breach both the CIFAS Principles and wider data protection law.
Why This Matters #
If you received a marker because your account was used as a money mule, but you were pressured or misled, you may be able to argue that:
- You were a victim of exploitation, not a fraudster.
- The marker was disproportionate to your actual role.
- The filing organisation failed to properly consider the context of vulnerability.
This is an important ground for challenging markers, particularly for younger clients or those in difficult personal circumstances.
