header-logo header-logo

DPAs: time to extend the regime?

01 August 2019 / Eoin O’Shea , Emma Shafton
Issue: 7851 / Categories: Opinion , Criminal
printer mail-detail
More than half a loaf: Tesco, Sarclad & the case for individual DPAs by Eoin O’Shea & Emma Shafton

A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is a means by which a prosecutor can resolve allegations of certain types of criminal behaviour by a corporation (Crime and Courts Act 2013, Sch 17). Instead of a prosecution and trial, the corporation agrees to disgorge any gains and pay additional penalties. It promises future good behaviour including, often, assisting prosecutors to investigate others. A prosecution is deferred pending fulfilment of these commitments. There have been five such DPAs so far, all proposed by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and approved of by the courts. The most recent, involving Serco Geographix Ltd, was issued last month (Serious Fraud Office v Serco Geographix Ltd, Southwark Crown Court 04/07/2019, (William Davis J)).

At present, DPAs can apply to corporate bodies only, but not to individuals. The best explanation for this is pragmatism: it can be very difficult to prosecute a company for serious crime, in particular where, under 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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll