The Context
Opening statements commenced on 27 January 2026 in the federal prosecution of three brothers—Tal (39), Oren (38), and Alon (38). The indictment alleges a 13-year pattern, from 2008 to 2021, of sexual trafficking and assault against dozens of women. The alleged methodology is critical: the defendants leveraged their professional prominence in high-end real estate and associated wealth to create a facade of legitimacy, facilitating access to victims. The trial is projected to last one month, with the defendants held without bail since December 2024. No verdict or sentencing exists; this is a live examination of systemic failure.
The Risk
This is not merely a criminal case. It is a precedent-setting exposure of how professional networks and corporate platforms can be weaponised. For a director, the personal liability hook is twofold. First, under the Companies Act 1993, directors have a duty to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence. A failure to implement robust due diligence and oversight protocols for senior personnel—especially those in client-facing or brand-representative roles—may constitute a breach of that duty. Second, the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 imposes a primary duty of care to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others affected by the work of the business. This extends to psychological safety and protection from predatory behaviour enabled by corporate standing. If the company’s culture or vetting processes are found to have been wilfully blind, directors may face personal liability for penalties. The court of public opinion will deliver its verdict long before the judiciary.
The Control
Governance must move beyond financial and operational risk to encompass reputational and conduct risk. The board must mandate a forensic review of all vetting procedures for high-profile employees and key partners. This review must be documented, challenged, and evidenced. Integrate ‘conduct risk’ explicitly into the corporate risk register, with clear ownership and reporting lines to the board. Treat professional status not as a shield, but as a vector requiring heightened scrutiny.
The Challenge
These are the critical questions you should be raising at the board table:
| Does our due diligence process for senior hires and key client relationships actively search for behavioural red flags, or does it rely passively on professional references and financial standing? | |
| What documented evidence do we possess that demonstrates the board has challenged management on the adequacy of our controls to prevent the misuse of corporate position for personal criminal conduct? | |
| If a senior figure in our organisation were charged with a serious crime, how would we demonstrate to regulators that we fulfilled our duties under the HSWA 2015 and Companies Act to protect others from their actions? |