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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll