header-logo header-logo

17 June 2022 / Neil Swift
Issue: 7983 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud
printer mail-detail

SFO—forgetting its purpose?

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

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