The legal and regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom has undergone significant evolution, shifting from an individualistic focus to an acceptance of corporate accountability. Historically, misconduct was attributed to individuals, but modern recognition acknowledges the substantial harm that collective entities can cause. This realisation has driven reforms to ensure that organisations themselves bear liability. Such reforms recognise the scale of harm possible when corporate structures facilitate fraud, corruption, or other misconduct that undermines market confidence and public trust.
This transformation reflects the complexity of contemporary commerce. Modern corporations often operate through decentralised structures, subsidiaries, and agents spread globally. Misconduct may arise without the direct involvement of board-level executives, creating gaps in traditional liability frameworks. Reforms address these shortcomings by extending responsibility to organisations and requiring them to demonstrate preventive oversight. This ensures accountability is not confined to individuals but instead reflects the institutional dimensions of modern corporate wrongdoing.
Legislative developments, such as the Fraud Act 2006, the Bribery Act 2010, and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, demonstrate Parliament’s commitment to enhancing accountability. These statutes expand liability from individual culpability to corporate responsibility, with the 2023 Act introducing a “failure to prevent fraud” offence for large companies. Collectively, these measures reflect a policy choice that economic crime threatens market stability, weakens international competitiveness, and erodes public confidence, thereby justifying stronger enforcement mechanisms against organisational wrongdoing.
Theoretical Foundations of Corporate Criminal Liability
Corporate personhood underpins organisational liability, treating corporations as distinct legal entities separate from their members. This facilitates commerce by enabling companies to contract, own assets, and engage in litigation. Importantly, it also legitimises the attribution of liability to corporations for misconduct. While some argue that attributing moral culpability to artificial entities is conceptually strained, the doctrine pragmatically ensures that organisations cannot evade accountability by deflecting blame solely onto employees or agents, thus aligning legal principles with commercial realities.
Deterrence offers one theoretical justification for organisational liability. Corporations pursue profit, often commanding vast resources and market influence. Legal liability encourages investment in compliance, shaping corporate behaviour through fear of fines, reputational loss, or regulatory sanctions. This rationale is compelling, as penalties imposed on organisations can have broader preventive impacts than sanctioning individuals alone. However, deterrence has limitations when corporations treat penalties as manageable business expenses rather than transformative instruments of behavioural reform.
Rehabilitation forms a second justification, reflecting the recognition that corporate collapse may harm employees, creditors, and markets. Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) embody this approach, offering leniency in exchange for reforms in governance, culture, and compliance systems. This enables corporations to continue operations while addressing systemic weaknesses. Rehabilitation aligns criminal justice goals with economic stability, ensuring organisations are not destroyed but instead compelled to evolve into responsible actors that strengthen markets through enhanced integrity and accountability.
A third theoretical strand is restorative justice, which prioritises repairing harm caused to stakeholders: compensation, restitution, or enhanced transparency aim to restore public trust and safeguard employees and investors. In the context of fraud or corruption, restorative measures foster confidence in corporate systems while protecting the broader economy. Collectively, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restorative justice underpin the intellectual and policy foundations of the UK’s corporate liability framework, which combines punitive, preventative, and restorative elements to achieve lasting regulatory impact.
While deterrence, rehabilitation, and restorative justice provide coherent justifications, critics question whether corporate criminal liability meaningfully captures organisational culpability. Wells argues that attributing moral blame to a “legal fiction” strains traditional concepts of mens rea; yet, pragmatism justifies this approach as a means to prevent impunity (Wells, Corporations and Criminal Responsibility, 2001).
Others highlight limits of deterrence, noting that large multinationals may treat fines as a manageable cost of doing business rather than a catalyst for cultural change (Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation, 1993). Similarly, rehabilitation through DPAs has been criticised as permitting corporations to “buy their way out” of accountability, raising concerns about moral hazard and the dilution of criminal law’s expressive function (Horder & Alldridge, 2016).
The Concept of the ‘Associated Person’ and Organisational Liability
Modern liability frameworks recognise that corporations act through individuals operating on their behalf. The concept of the “associated person” extends accountability beyond directors to employees, agents, contractors, and subsidiaries. This broad attribution prevents organisations from shielding themselves by delegating risk to intermediaries. Liability attaches where misconduct benefits the organisation, regardless of the seniority of the actor. This ensures corporate accountability reflects operational realities in decentralised and international commercial environments.
Practical consequences are significant. For example, misconduct by a trading subsidiary may expose the parent company if the fraud benefits the wider group. Similarly, bribery by a contractor pursuing contracts may implicate the commissioning organisation, unless adequate preventive measures are in place. The principle compels companies to monitor relationships with agents and subsidiaries, embedding oversight across all operational levels. Liability thus becomes preventative rather than reactive, ensuring organisations cannot disown misconduct carried out in their name.
The extension of liability through associated persons aligns with international anti-corruption initiatives. Many forms of misconduct occur abroad, particularly in higher-risk jurisdictions where subsidiaries or contractors operate. By imposing accountability on parent organisations, the UK framework promotes consistent ethical standards globally. This approach closes enforcement gaps in transnational commerce, encouraging corporations to design compliance programmes that extend across global supply chains and operational networks. Such alignment ensures the UK system reflects global realities in modern commerce.
This model represents a shift from reliance on individual culpability to institutional responsibility. It incentivises investment in preventive systems, embedding ethical compliance within governance. By codifying obligations, the law ensures that oversight responsibilities are inextricably linked to corporate operations. This development illustrates the evolution of liability principles from narrow attribution doctrines towards holistic accountability. It also reflects a conscious policy choice to integrate prevention into organisational culture, addressing the realities of misconduct in modern corporate governance.
Fraud Offences in Corporate Contexts
Fraud within corporate contexts is multifaceted, encompassing false accounting, misrepresentation, and complex financial schemes. The statutory framework addressing fraud combines common law principles with modern legislation. While the Theft Act 1968 introduced offences such as false accounting, the Fraud Act 2006 remains central, creating general offences of fraud by false representation, failure to disclose information, and abuse of position. These provisions provide prosecutors with flexibility, capturing misconduct beyond traditional categories and ensuring evolving fraud strategies can be addressed effectively.
Fraud represents more than individual dishonesty; it poses systemic risks that destabilise markets and erode trust. High-profile accounting scandals illustrate how fraud can precipitate market collapses, eroding investor confidence and undermining entire industries. Misconduct within corporations has ripple effects that extend across supply chains and economies, affecting not only the immediate victims but also broader communities. Parliament has recognised these risks, progressively tightening legislative measures to ensure liability evolves in line with economic crime, thereby reducing opportunities for organisations to exploit technical loopholes and avoid accountability.
The breadth of the Fraud Act has allowed prosecutors to address misconduct ranging from mis-selling scandals to systemic accounting irregularities. For example, widespread manipulation of financial statements not only misleads shareholders but also undermines market stability. Such conduct demonstrates the societal scale of corporate fraud. The expansive statutory framework, therefore, reflects a deliberate policy to treat organisational fraud as a grave economic and social threat, justifying robust mechanisms to impose liability upon corporate entities.
Although the Fraud Act dominates contemporary practice, older provisions remain relevant. Fraudulent trading, as defined under Section 993 of the Companies Act 2006, continues to encompass dishonesty in corporate operations. Prosecutors, however, prefer the flexibility of the Fraud Act. This overlap ensures continuity but also underscores Parliament’s aim of creating comprehensive liability frameworks. Together, these statutes form a robust architecture that captures both individual dishonesty and institutional failures, addressing the multifaceted risks posed by corporate fraud.
The Bribery Act 2010 and the Failure-to-Prevent Model
The Bribery Act 2010 marked a decisive shift in organisational liability by introducing a “failure to prevent” bribery offence. This innovation moved beyond reliance on the identification doctrine, which had limited application in large corporations. Instead, liability is imposed where bribery occurs within an organisation’s structure unless the company can demonstrate that it maintained “adequate procedures” to prevent misconduct. This approach redefined expectations of corporate accountability by linking liability to preventive governance and compliance measures.
The government’s statutory guidance outlines six key principles for adequate procedures: proportionate measures, top-level commitment, risk assessment, due diligence, effective communication and training, and regular monitoring. These principles offer flexibility, enabling organisations to design frameworks suited to their size, structure, and sector. Importantly, they emphasise leadership commitment as a determinant of cultural integrity. By embedding accountability within governance, the Act transforms bribery prevention into a central component of corporate strategy rather than a subsidiary compliance function.
Case studies illustrate the Bribery Act’s practical effects. Construction businesses have reformed procurement processes to minimise opportunities for corrupt subcontracting. Multinational corporations have established compliance departments with global oversight functions, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions where they operate. These measures demonstrate not only legal compliance but also the reputational benefits of demonstrating ethical governance. Corporations that adopt strong preventive measures position themselves as trustworthy market participants, enhancing long-term resilience while reducing the likelihood of prosecution.
The Bribery Act’s model has influenced subsequent reforms, including the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which introduced a “failure to prevent fraud” offence for large organisations. This continuity demonstrates a legislative trend towards embedding proactive accountability into corporate law. The emphasis on preventive responsibility reflects a shift from reactive punishment to forward-looking governance, positioning compliance systems as both a legal necessity and a competitive advantage in an increasingly regulated global commercial environment.
The Identification Doctrine: Strengths and Weaknesses
Despite legislative innovation, the identification doctrine remains influential in areas not yet addressed by failure-to-prevent offences. This principle attributes liability only where misconduct can be traced to a company’s “directing mind and will,” typically senior executives or directors. Conceptually straightforward, the doctrine aligns liability with ultimate authority. However, in practice, its limitations are pronounced in large, decentralised corporations, where misconduct often arises at the middle-management level or across subsidiaries, beyond the direct involvement of senior decision-makers.
The doctrine’s shortcomings were exemplified in Tesco Supermarkets v Nattrass [1972]. Here, the House of Lords held that liability could not be attributed to Tesco because the misconduct originated with a store manager, not senior executives. The ruling clarified the doctrine but revealed its limitations, effectively shielding large corporations with dispersed decision-making structures while exposing smaller organisations to disproportionate liability. This disparity has been widely criticised as undermining consistent accountability across corporate structures.
The Law Commission’s 2022 report on Corporate Criminal Liability described the identification doctrine as “no longer fit for purpose” in the context of multinational corporate groups with dispersed decision-making. Its rigidity has contributed to the collapse of significant prosecutions, such as the acquittal of senior Barclays executives in the LIBOR scandal, where prosecutors were unable to prove the involvement of a “directing mind.” The Commission recommended extending liability beyond directors to senior managers, signalling recognition that the doctrine artificially shields large corporations while exposing SMEs to disproportionate risk.
Failure-to-prevent offences, beginning with the Bribery Act 2010, sought to address these weaknesses by removing the need to identify a “directing mind.” Liability is imposed wherever misconduct occurs within an organisation, unless adequate preventive measures are in place. Nonetheless, the identification doctrine persists in areas not yet covered by such reforms, particularly in areas other than bribery and fraud. Its continued application constrains prosecutors in addressing complex misconduct, limiting liability in contexts where failure-to-prevent principles have not yet been legislated.
The 2023 Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act partially addressed these concerns by expanding the scope of attribution under the identification doctrine to include “senior managers,” in addition to directors. This reform broadens liability in practice, but gaps remain in areas where statutory failure-to-prevent offences are absent. The persistence of the identification doctrine highlights the need for comprehensive legislative modernisation. Without such reform, accountability risks being inconsistent, depending upon the type of offence and the organisational level of the individuals involved.
Case Law and Enforcement Practice
Judicial and regulatory enforcement illustrates how organisational liability operates in practice. The Rolls-Royce case is emblematic, as the company entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement worth £497 million following widespread bribery across multiple jurisdictions. This settlement underscored the reputational and financial consequences of misconduct, while demonstrating the pragmatic value of DPAs, which preserve corporate viability while mandating compliance reform. The case highlighted the importance of embedding integrity within corporate cultures, particularly in multinational operations that are vulnerable to high-risk environments.
Judicial reasoning in Rolls-Royce emphasised public interest in preserving corporate viability. Sir Brian Leveson, approving the DPA in 2017, stressed that the collapse of such a major employer would produce “catastrophic consequences” for innocent stakeholders. While pragmatic, this reasoning underscores the tension between accountability and economic stability. Critics argue that DPAs entrench a two-tier justice system: corporations can negotiate settlements to avoid trial, whereas individuals are exposed to full criminal sanction. This disparity risks undermining perceptions of fairness and weakening the deterrent impact of corporate liability frameworks.
Similarly, Serco Geografix Ltd entered a DPA after admitting false accounting in relation to government offender-tagging contracts. The case highlighted the risks associated with misrepresentation in public sector procurement and demonstrated the systemic consequences of dishonest financial reporting. Rather than pursuing corporate collapse, the settlement required Serco to implement significant governance reforms. The approach struck a balance between accountability and economic continuity, reflecting the rehabilitative rationale underlying the corporate liability framework.
The Barclays LIBOR scandal further illustrates the exposure of financial institutions to liability arising from governance failures. Traders manipulated benchmark interest rates, undermining confidence in international financial markets. While prosecutions of individuals yielded mixed outcomes, the scandal revealed structural weaknesses in oversight and risk management. Although brought under conspiracy to defraud rather than statutory fraud provisions, the LIBOR prosecutions highlighted how misconduct at relatively junior levels can destabilise entire institutions and trigger significant regulatory and reputational consequences.
Collectively, these cases illustrate the dual aims of deterrence and rehabilitation. By imposing financial penalties while incentivising reform, regulators seek to embed compliance into organisational cultures. Liability arises not only from intentional wrongdoing but also from systemic governance failures. The case law illustrates the risks corporations face for failing to implement adequate preventive measures, highlighting the delicate balance regulators strike between accountability, market stability, and public confidence in the integrity of corporate conduct.
Comparative Perspectives: UK, US, and EU Approaches
The UK’s corporate liability framework shares features with international regimes but also displays unique characteristics. In the United States, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) imposes strict liability for bribing foreign officials, with an extensive extraterritorial reach. Unlike the UK Bribery Act, facilitation payments remain permissible under the FCPA, creating substantive divergence. Enforcement in the US is typically more aggressive, with high-value penalties and reliance on plea bargains, compelling corporations operating internationally to prioritise compliance with American regulatory standards.
The European Union, by contrast, employs directives to harmonise approaches across member states. Instruments such as the 2017 Directive on the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests (PIF Directive) and the 2019 Whistleblowing Directive emphasise liability of legal persons, protection of reporting channels, and consistent enforcement. Anti-money laundering directives further embed accountability across the financial sector. These frameworks establish minimum standards, allowing national discretion in implementation, which creates a more flexible yet uneven regulatory environment across the Union.
Compared with these regimes, the UK approach is distinctive for its statutory “failure-to-prevent” model. Unlike the United States, which relies heavily on prosecutorial discretion, the UK provides companies with a statutory defence if they can demonstrate adequate preventive procedures. This creates a clearer compliance incentive; however, some critics note that UK enforcement has not always matched the intensity of American enforcement. Nevertheless, the UK’s structured statutory framework is seen as more predictable and accessible for organisations designing compliance programmes.
However, the UK’s statutory clarity contrasts with concerns about under-enforcement. Unlike the United States, where the Department of Justice has pursued Siemens, Goldman Sachs, and other multinationals with penalties exceeding $1 billion, UK regulators have often been constrained by resourcing and evidential challenges. Meanwhile, EU approaches remain uneven: while France’s Sapin II law (2016) created stringent compliance obligations, Germany has historically relied on administrative fines rather than corporate criminal liability. This patchwork suggests that while the UK model offers predictability, it risks being more symbolic than effective if not matched by consistent enforcement intensity.
Global corporations must therefore navigate overlapping regulatory requirements. The interplay between the UK Bribery Act, US FCPA, and EU directives has effectively created an international benchmark for anti-fraud and anti-bribery compliance. Organisations now implement consistent global compliance standards to manage exposure across multiple jurisdictions. This convergence reflects increasing international recognition of the risks posed by corporate misconduct, demonstrating the influence of the UK framework in shaping broader global approaches to organisational liability and fraud prevention.
Challenges and Criticisms of the Current Framework
Despite considerable progress, the UK framework on organisational liability has faced criticisms. One primary concern relates to proportionality. Large corporations often possess the resources to develop sophisticated compliance systems, whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) may struggle. The “failure to prevent fraud” offence under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 applies only to large organisations, recognising this disparity. However, SMEs remain subject to other regulatory obligations, leaving unresolved questions about the fairness and proportionality of enforcement.
Another challenge arises from statutory ambiguity. Concepts such as “adequate procedures” or “reasonable procedures” deliberately lack prescriptive standards, enabling flexibility across sectors. However, this flexibility introduces uncertainty, leaving organisations unsure of what compliance measures will suffice in practice. This vagueness risks inconsistent application, with some organisations over-complying to reduce risk while others adopt insufficient measures. The absence of concrete benchmarks may foster unnecessary bureaucracy, complicating rather than clarifying the compliance environment.
Enforcement unevenness also remains a persistent criticism. Regulatory bodies tend to prioritise high-profile cases involving multinational corporations, often at the expense of more minor but equally harmful misconduct. This emphasis may reflect resource allocation, but it risks creating perceptions of a two-tier justice system. Consistent enforcement across organisations of different sizes and sectors is essential for maintaining fairness; otherwise, confidence in corporate accountability frameworks may erode, undermining public trust in both regulators and market integrity.
Concerns exist that legal reforms may encourage procedural compliance rather than genuine cultural change. Some organisations adopt detailed written policies but neglect their practical implementation, reducing compliance to a symbolic or box-ticking exercise. This undermines the preventive aims of failure-to-prevent offences and risks creating an illusion of integrity. For lasting effectiveness, enforcement agencies must evaluate not only whether procedures exist but also whether they are embedded within organisational culture and genuinely influence behaviour across all levels.
Fraud Prevention Policies and Procedures: From Compliance to Culture
Fraud prevention is now a central component of corporate governance in the UK. The government’s six principles of adequate procedures under the Bribery Act provide a valuable template for fraud prevention more broadly. Proportionality, leadership, risk assessment, due diligence, communication, and monitoring form the foundation of effective compliance frameworks. These principles highlight that fraud prevention should be adaptable to organisational risk profiles while being firmly anchored in governance and culture, ensuring compliance remains both effective and sustainable.
Risk assessment provides the basis for targeted fraud prevention. Organisations must identify vulnerabilities in procurement, finance, supply chains, and overseas operations. Trading entities conducting international business face heightened risks in jurisdictions with weaker governance, necessitating greater due diligence and monitoring. By allocating resources proportionately, companies ensure preventive systems remain efficient and practical. Tailored approaches are crucial, as universal frameworks cannot adequately address the diverse risks faced across industries, sectors, and geographical jurisdictions.
Cultural leadership is equally vital. Fraud prevention is most effective when promoted by senior executives, ensuring ethical standards are embedded into organisational values. Employees are more likely to comply with policies and report misconduct when leadership demonstrates a visible commitment to these values. Mechanisms such as training, internal communications, and disciplinary measures reinforce these cultural expectations. Organisational resilience against fraud depends less on formal rules than on the daily embodiment of integrity by leaders and managers, shaping trust throughout corporate structures.
Monitoring and review mechanisms ensure compliance programmes adapt to evolving risks. Fraud threats evolve in response to technological, economic, and regulatory developments, requiring organisations to remain responsive. Regular audits, employee feedback, and independent reviews identify weaknesses and allow continuous improvement. This approach prevents compliance systems from becoming static or outdated. By embedding ongoing evaluation, organisations can respond to new risks dynamically, ensuring that fraud prevention strategies remain relevant, credible, and effective in safeguarding market integrity and reputation.
The Wirecard scandal in Germany highlights the risks of relying solely on formal compliance frameworks without implementing genuine cultural change. Despite sophisticated structures, pervasive fraud flourished due to weak oversight and cultural tolerance of misconduct. This case demonstrates that prevention cannot rest solely on technical compliance but must involve ethical leadership and a willingness to confront profit-driven pressures that may incentivise wrongdoing.
A further concern relates to the capacity of enforcement agencies. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has long been criticised for its limited resources, resulting in the prioritisation of a handful of high-profile cases. At the same time, lower-level but harmful misconduct is often overlooked (Justice Committee Report, 2021). This selective enforcement risks fostering the perception that corporate liability operates unevenly, undermining confidence in the system’s deterrent effect. Without addressing the chronic underfunding of regulators, even the most sophisticated statutory reforms risk devolving into symbolic gestures rather than meaningful accountability.
Enhancing Organisational Measures: Technology, Ethics, and Governance
Fraud prevention extends beyond statutory compliance to wider organisational measures. Ethical culture remains central. Organisations that reward integrity reduce opportunities for misconduct. Whistleblowing channels, supported by anonymity and protection from retaliation, encourage employees to report wrongdoing without fear of retribution. Recognising and rewarding ethical behaviour reinforces cultural resilience. Ethical leadership signals that compliance is a shared responsibility across all levels, embedding fraud prevention into daily practices rather than treating it as a formal or isolated requirement.
Technology offers new tools for proactive fraud detection. Advances in artificial intelligence, data analytics, and automated monitoring enable companies to detect irregularities in real-time. Financial institutions, for instance, now utilise predictive algorithms to identify suspicious transactions, allowing for rapid intervention. Continuous monitoring reduces reliance on retrospective reviews and strengthens preventative oversight. However, technology must be supported by appropriate governance and human expertise, ensuring that digital tools complement, rather than replace, sound ethical judgement and professional accountability.
Governance structures also play an essential role. Clear segregation of duties reduces risks of collusion, while independent oversight committees enhance accountability. Boards should integrate fraud risk into strategic governance, ensuring compliance is treated as a priority rather than an operational issue. Effective governance strengthens alignment between organisational policy and practice. By embedding fraud prevention at the board level, companies demonstrate a genuine commitment, ensuring accountability flows through both management and operational levels of the organisation.
Education and training complete the framework. Employees require practical knowledge of fraud risks relevant to their roles, supported by ongoing development programmes. Regular updates maintain awareness of evolving threats, reinforcing cultural expectations. Role-specific training ensures employees are equipped to identify and address risks effectively. Combined with governance, technology, and culture, education builds resilience by making fraud prevention a collective responsibility. When every employee is both informed and engaged, organisations become better equipped to withstand fraudulent pressures.
Summary – The Evolution of Corporate Accountability
The evolution of corporate liability in the UK reflects a transition from individual accountability towards institutional responsibility. The adoption of the failure-to-prevent model, alongside statutory expansion under the Fraud Act 2006, Bribery Act 2010, and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, has compelled organisations to adopt proactive compliance measures. By extending liability to associated persons, Parliament has ensured that organisations cannot evade responsibility by attributing misconduct to rogue individuals, thereby embedding accountability into their governance and culture.
The statutory framework demonstrates Parliament’s determination to modernise corporate liability. Older provisions, such as the Theft Act 1968 and the Companies Act 2006, remain relevant, but recent reforms illustrate an emphasis on proactive prevention. Case law such as Rolls-Royce, Serco, and Barclays demonstrates the financial, reputational, and operational consequences of non-compliance. Collectively, the legislative and judicial frameworks underscore that organisations must anticipate risks, implement preventive measures, and prioritise ethical leadership to protect market integrity and public trust.
Comparative analysis highlights both convergence and divergence internationally. The UK’s statutory compliance defence contrasts with the US’s aggressive enforcement under the FCPA, while EU directives establish harmonised minimum standards with national variation. Multinational corporations, therefore, face overlapping regulatory obligations, prompting the development of consistent global compliance strategies. The UK framework makes a significant contribution to this international convergence, reinforcing its role as a key benchmark for effective corporate accountability and fraud prevention.
Challenges persist. Proportionality for SMEs, ambiguity in statutory defences, uneven enforcement, and the risk of compliance formalism remain areas of concern. However, reforms emphasise prevention, cultural change, and global alignment. By leveraging technology, governance, ethical culture, and international cooperation, UK organisations can strengthen resilience against fraud. The trajectory of reform demonstrates a clear shift from reactive punishment to proactive prevention, ensuring corporate liability contributes to long-term stability, public trust, and the integrity of markets.
Additional
articles can be found at Business Law Made Easy. This site looks at business
legislation to assist organisations and people in increasing the quality,
efficiency, and effectiveness of their product and service supply to the
customers' delight. ©️ Business Law Made Easy. All rights reserved.
