header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

DPAs: still dividing opinion?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
28 June 2018 / Oliver Cooke , Dan Hyde
Issue: 7799 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail
nlj_7799_hyde

Deferred Prosecution Agreements—five years on, what have we learned? By Oliver Cooke & Dan Hyde

  • DPAs subject to rigorous scrutiny by the courts.
  • Balance meaningful punishment with fairness for innocent parties.
  • Can now be used for offences under the Financial Crime Act as well as the Bribery Act.

Since their introduction in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (CCA 2013), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has concluded four Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), seemingly all in different circumstances (the details of one remaining confidential). Opinion is divided: some commentators believe they provide an effective means of compelling businesses to behave ethically, lawfully and transparently; others (including the Executive Director of Transparency International UK) feel they represent ‘a soft option for companies that should be prosecuted for serious crimes,’ (Robert Barrington, executive director, Transparency International UK).

While it is still undeniably early days for DPAs, informative trends do begin to emerge from the DPAs concluded with Standard Bank, the company known as ‘XYZ’, and Rolls-Royce.

Fairness

Fairness is the overriding principle at

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Jersey litigation lead appointed to global STEP Council

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

Firm invests in future talent with new training cohort

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Traders’ convictions quashed in Libor shock
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
NLJ this week: Small firms call for tech clarity as AI looms
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Trans pool player loses discrimination fight
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Pro bono power without the red tape
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Fraud claims climb as courts brace for AI threats
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll