All posts in the SFO category

SFO ‘self-funding’ and government handouts: ethical and constitutional?

Whilst recognising the need to fund extra resources required for intensive and time-consuming investigations, two very different, but equally thought-provoking issues come to mind; is ‘self-funding’ through asset seizures and civil settlements entirely ethical; and is the rule of law undermined by government approval of which investigations ‘deserve’ special attention?

SFO back in the spotlight

Richard Alderman’s tenure as director of the Serious Fraud Office will be subjected to further scrutiny today when he appears before the Public Accounts Committee. In preparation for Mr Alderman’s questioning, Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP has published two reports examining alleged misconduct at the SFO during the period of Mr Alderman’s directorship. It is no little irony that the reports hoist Mr Alderman on the petard of two of the main policies he advocated at the SFO: whistle-blowing and self-reporting.

Will DPAs really be the effective new tool to tackle corporate criminality that the government hopes?

The use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements is likely to become available to the SFO and the CPS in early 2014. A Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) will be an agreement between the prosecutor and a company (they do not extend to individuals) that a criminal prosecution for an economic offence (for example bribery, corruption, fraud, money laundering) will be deferred or postponed if certain conditions are met (the payment of substantial penalties, compensation to victims, disgorging of the profit from the wrongdoing, reforming culture and practice to prevent future reoffending). If those conditions are met, the prosecution will be dismissed.

The government hopes that DPAs will be an incentive for organisations to engage and cooperate with the SFO/CPS at an early stage to achieve a better outcome. In the process they will avoid an expensive and lengthy investigation and subsequent proceedings which are uncertain, time consuming and reputationally damaging. For the prosecutor, it is hoped that DPAs will: free up resources; encourage self reporting and hence the detection of more corporate crime leading to more corporate accountability; and generate revenue from penalties (although it is said that this in itself would not be an excuse to use a DPA over a prosecution).

SFO clarifies self-reporting rules – the start of a new era?

Today the SFO finally broke its silence over self-reporting and issued a statement to explain its position. The previous guidance issued by the SFO was withdrawn earlier this year and many were wondering what the SFO was going to say about this important aspect of domestic and cross border criminal practice.

Should the SFO rush in to prosecute the banks over LIBOR?

In the wake of Barclays being hauled over the coals by a parliamentary committee, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has announced that it will open an investigation to probe untoward conduct by any of the 16 banks who were on the LIBOR panel during 2008. But the SFO would be wise to tread very carefully and make sure that, before it rushes in, it has the necessary sharp teeth to do so effectively. Whilst it clearly has the power to prosecute, the legal terrain upon which to bring a case is challenging. An ignominious failure to convict a banker after an inevitable high-profile trial would stain the reputation of its new director and spark fresh calls for its abolition. The last time the SFO brought a case which alleged price-fixing (R v Goldshield), it misunderstood the law so badly that the case collapsed at the first hurdle.

The Bribery Act: Year of the Sleeping Dragon

This Sunday (1 July), will be the first anniversary of the Bribery Act 2010 coming into force. Going strictly by the numbers, the sole prosecution of Redbridge Magistrates’ Court clerk Munir Patel, convicted in October of accepting a bribe to remove a motoring conviction and sentenced to six years imprisonment (later reduced to four) falls on the fine line between damp squib and abject failure.

What to do next if the inspector calls – dawn raids and unannounced visits

Last month it was reported that the SFO had not conducted any ‘dawn raids’ in the 12 months to 31 March 2012, a statistic which compares dramatically with the average of around 50 a year in the three preceding years. The reason for the impasse has been attributed to the implications of mistakes made in the Tchenguiz brothers investigation but this has been denied by the SFO. Whatever the reason, such news serves as a reminder of the investigator’s favoured technique of acting without prior notice to obtain evidence from a suspect or custodian of material that might be relevant to an investigation.

New SFO Director David Green’s first public speech

“Piffle”. That was the round response of the new SFO Director, David Green, to adverse press speculation about the future of the SFO, linked to the visit by the CPS Inspectorate and current High Court litigation.

Today at the Corporate Accountability conference in London, sponsored by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, the new SFO Director set out his stall for the first time in a public speech. The SFO’s “fuzzy” role is to be refocused on “top drawer” fraud, cases which undermine confidence in UK PLC and serious corruption. It will also tackle, in the public interest, cases which other bodies are not set up to handle including those relating to new species of fraud but out go the “boiler room” frauds and other cases of less public interest significance.