Part 4: Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme Section 67: Offence of carrying out etc relevant activities pursuant to unregistered foreign activity arrangement
Section 67 provides offences for those who carry out activities pursuant to unregistered arrangements under the enhanced tier. These complement the offence provided for by section 65(5), which relates to failure to comply with registration requirements. The effect of this section is that while P has 10 days to register the arrangement, the activities cannot begin until the arrangement has been registered.
	Subsections (2) and (3) provide that an offence is committed if: a person carries out a relevant activity, or arranges for others to carry out such an activity, pursuant to an unregistered foreign activity arrangement; and the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that they are acting pursuant to a "foreign activity arrangement". This knowledge test ensures that a person unwittingly acting pursuant to an unregistered foreign activity arrangement does not commit an offence; for example, where a person has been deceived into believing that they are acting for someone other than a specified person. Subsection (2) applies in relation to "P" and subsection (3) applies in relation to any other person who is acting pursuant to the foreign activity arrangement.
	Subsection (4) provides a potential defence to the offence under subsection (3) (i.e. for persons other than P). This defence is available where the person has taken all steps reasonably practicable to determine whether the foreign activity arrangement that they are acting pursuant to was or was not registered, and having taken such steps, reasonably believed that it was registered. This could include being able to show they have requested and received the confirmation of registration the registrant has received from the scheme.
	Subsection (5) sets out that a person is considered to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (4) if there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue with respect of it, and the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It will be for a defendant to provide evidence that the defence applies, following which it will be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not take all reasonably practicable steps, or that they did not hold a reasonable belief that the arrangement was registered.
	Subsection (6) provides that references to "relevant activity" in section 67 have the meaning given by section 65 (see section 65(2).
Example (1): How the offence would apply in relation to example 1 under section 66
If the company had not registered the arrangement with the foreign government officials, employees of the company that are engaging in the delivery of the networking and collaboration events may be committing an offence. This would only be the case if the employee knew, or ought reasonably to have known (considering other matters known to them), that the networking and collaboration events were being delivered at the direction of a foreign power. Whether an employee ought reasonably to know about a foreign activity arrangement will vary from case-to-case. However, key factors will include: the role that the person has within the company, the information that they are privy to, and the extent of their knowledge of the company’s links to the specified person.
Example (2): How the offence would apply in relation to example 2 under section 66
In this example, the entrepreneur is party to the arrangement with the DCA (a ‘specified person’) and so must register that arrangement within 10 days of it being made. If, however, the entrepreneur was to begin carrying out activities pursuant to that arrangement within the 10-day period and had not registered the arrangement, they would be committing an offence under section 67(2) because they would be carrying out activities under an unregistered foreign activity arrangement, even if the offence under 66(5) had not yet been committed.
Example (3): How the offence would apply in relation to example 3 under section 66
If the entrepreneur had not registered the arrangement with the MoS official, those individuals who are part of the entrepreneur’s UK network and approaching experts at the UK conference could be committing an offence. This would only be the case if the individuals knew, or ought reasonably to have known when considering other matters known to them, that their recruitment activities had originated from a direction of an MoS official.