header-logo header-logo

SFO—forgetting its purpose?

17 June 2022 / Neil Swift
Issue: 7983 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud
printer mail-detail
84923
Has the SFO’s pursuit of corporate scalps undermined its original mission? Neil Swift reports on its successes & shortcomings

When the Roskill Report (Fraud Trials Committee Report) was published in 1986, it recommended that the government set up a new unified organisation responsible for the detection, investigation and prosecution of serious fraud cases. The government accepted the recommendation and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was born. It had a ‘cradle to grave’ approach and was given new powers, all designed to remedy perceived shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud.

However, the SFO has strayed from its initial mission statement, in at least two respects—investigation and prosecution.

Developments in the law

This has come about as a result of two developments in the law: the offence of failing to prevent bribery, and the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs). The former means that a company commits an offence if a person connected to it anywhere in the world pays a bribe for the purpose of the company’s business, and the company

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

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