header-logo header-logo

27 May 2010 / Nicola Mcleod , Eoin O’Shea , Alex Beal
Issue: 7419 / Categories: Features , Regulatory , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Back to the drawing board?

Eoin O’Shea, Nicola McLeod & Alex Beal say the SFO will have to reconsider penalties for bribery

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) published guidance entitled, Approach of the Serious Fraud Office to Dealing with Overseas Corruption, on 21 July 2009. The guidance encourages self-reporting of corruption offences by corporate entities. It provides for the possibility of a “global settlement” with the SFO where liability arises in another jurisdiction, and makes plain the SFO’s willingness to negotiate on the subject of penalties. It also makes plain that in the right circumstances (such as self-reporting and co-operation with the SFO’s investigation, as well as a commitment to reform of corporate practices and procedures) the SFO would recommend that only civil penalties be imposed (pursuant to its powers under Pt 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act).

On the other hand, the guidance makes clear that, in the absence of cooperation and self-reporting, companies paying bribes should not expect leniency. The chances of a criminal prosecution are increased. The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll