Professionals who are normally bound by secrecy rules would be told that they must answer investigators’ questions. Failure to do so would leave them open to being fined or even sent to jail, The Times has learnt.

The targets of the new powers are white-collar workers with links to gangsters, who use their skills either to legitimise profits or create networks of off-shore accounts and companies to hide the proceeds of crime.

However, the powers planned for the new Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) have angered civil liberties groups and professional bodies who were already concerned that Tony Blair and David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, were pushing through “draconian” legislation.

Mr Blair, who is the driving force behind the creation of SOCA, the British equivalent of the FBI, has already suggested that defendants in organised crime cases could face a lower burden of proof if they are brought to trial.

Yesterday Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the civil rights group, said: “My heart sinks. It is always talk tough, legislate first and think later. Yet again it is the rush to the statute book before you have even made the case and looked properly at existing powers.”

The new powers are part of a package of measures being debated within Whitehall for inclusion in a White Paper on fighting organised crime. It is due to be published next month.

Under the proposals, the Government is also considering the use of plea bargaining to persuade members of gangs to give evidence against their bosses in return for reduced sentences, and new rules on the use of informants within criminal organisations. The legislation compelling witnesses to talk to investigators is likely to be modelled on powers already held by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

The Home Office is also studying the methods of the Australian Crime Commission, which can call witnesses, seize documents and demand answers under oath. Witnesses who fail to answer questions can be heavily fined and jailed but answers gathered from special sittings can be used only for intelligence purposes and not in criminal trials.

In Britain the SFO’s powers are aimed at releasing professional advisers from confidentiality agreements or the risk of being sued for a breach of privacy. The SFO has prosecuted a string of advisers, including solicitors, who have refused to cooperate. They have been fined £1,000 or more plus costs or ordered to do community service. However, the SOCA powers are certain to include much tougher penalties because of the nature of the offences.

Last autumn Chris Fox, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, urged the Government to take action against reluctant witnesses and the professional advisers who stay silent. Yesterday one police investigator said that the new legislation could be used to make victims of gangs talk to officers. In France witnesses have to appear before an investigating magistrate and face jail if they do not answer questions.

According to one Whitehall source, there is now debate among officials, the police and ministers about whether witnesses should also be forced to give testimony.

A report by Sir Robert Auld in 2001 on reforming the criminal justice system suggested the use of plea bargaining to reduce the number of trials. Robert Wardle, director of the SFO, also backs plea bargaining and wants judges to give defence lawyers firm indications of jail sentences and fines to persuade their clients to plead guilty.

SOCA, working with a special corps of prosecuting lawyers, would go further. Using the model developed in the United States under the Racketeering, International and Corrupt Organizations Act, defendants would be offered a deal in return for going into the witness box.

They would get shorter sentences or fines in return for their evidence but it could be buttressed by other material including the use of telephone taps which at present are banned from courts.

SOCA could also get new guidelines on the use of “participating informants” criminals who commit crime themselves to get information. In the past Customs investigators have lost cases, involving excise duty, over the activities of key informants and SOCA will rely heavily on intelligence from these sources.

Janet Paraskeva, chief executive of the Law Society, said; “We would have to look cautiously at anything which would give this new body this kind of power. We think the key problem is not lack of powers but one of co-ordination between agencies.”

The Institute of Chartered Accountants said new powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act already required accountants to report suspicious transactions and it was difficult to see how the new measures would go beyond that.

A Home Office spokeswoman said nothing would be revealed before the White Paper is published. She said: “Any legislation that follows will contain a range of measures to ensure the new agency and the individuals employed there have all the powers they need to tackle organised crime.”

TOUGH JUSTICE

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Colonel's Iraq speech 'left men fearful'
• Iraqi translator is left to his fate in Basra
• Ten tips to help you tell if the rescue is working