header-logo header-logo

18 January 2017
Issue: 7730 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Rolls DPA breaks the record

Rolls-Royce has agreed to pay out a record £497m as part of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) following allegations of bribery in Indonesia, Thailand, Russia, China, India, Nigeria and Malaysia.

The company said: “Rolls-Royce has co-operated fully with the authorities and will continue to do so.”

The DPA was approved this week by Sir Brian Leveson, President of the Queen’s Bench division.

David Green, director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), said: “[The agreement] allows Rolls-Royce to draw a line under conduct spanning seven countries, three decades and three sectors of its business.”

The SFO’s four-year investigation into the engineering company is the largest it has ever conducted, costing £13m and involving 70 SFO personnel. It is the third use of a DPA since the power became available to prosecutors in 2014.

The SFO will receive £497m, but separate agreements with the US Department of Justice and the Minsterio Publico Federal in Brazil bring the total payment to £671m.

Barry Vitou, partner at Pinsent Masons, said: “By anyone’s standards this is one of the Top 10 enforcement actions of all time. The amount dwarfs any amount previously contemplated by a UK court in the context of criminal law enforcement." 

In the US, however, there is speculation that President-elect Donald Trump may seek to repeal the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—the stateside equivalent of the Bribery Act. He described it as a “horrible law and it should be changed”, in a May 2012 interview with CNBC.

Crime and regulatory barrister Edward Henry, of QEB Hollis Whiteman, said: “Trump wants to dump the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act but the massive Rolls-Royce fines show how much Washington depends on the bribery and corruption cash cow.”

Issue: 7730 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll