Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the UK, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acts as an independent governmental authority tasked with investigating and prosecuting the most serious or complex fraud and domestic and overseas corruption. As readers might be aware, a few years ago the UK introduced a new legal regime to tackle corruption under the UK Bribery Act 2010, with some describing it as the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world.
David Green, CB QC, the Director of the SFO, recently published his annual report (2013-2014), which gives the opportunity to reflect on the recent past and look to the future concerning the SFO's activities, notably as regards corruption enforcement.
The Annual Report
In the areas of both fraud and corruption, the SFO ran a total of eight prosecutions of 18 defendants last year, with a conviction rate of 85%. It is relevant to note, however, that the numbers are quite small ' 11 defendants were convicted, of whom four pleaded guilty with seven being found guilty by a jury. The SFO also opened 12 investigations last year, and charged 35 defendants. Although from a U.S. perspective this might be considered to be minor, given the scale and complexity of the SFO's work, it actually is a modest success, and it should be borne in mind that the SFO essentially only tackles serious and complex cases.
As for the outlook for the future, the Director states that the SFO is “undertaking fewer but much larger and more complex investigations” and that the SFO has “expanded [its] analytical and intelligence capability, and currently [has] significant pre-investigation projects in development.”
Deferred Prosecution Agreements
What will be of particular interest to watch as a development is the use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) that came into operation earlier this year with the SFO's enforcement of the UK Bribery Act 2010. There have as yet been no public announcements of a DPA going through the system. DPAs are a tool for the SFO (and other government crime authorities) to try and reach a form of plea bargain with corporate offenders and thereby shortcut trials, time and cost. This process is similar to the U.S. plea-bargaining system, but it has major differences, most notably the oversight role of a judge who has to approve any proposed deal (in open court). It will probably take some time for DPAs to bed down and so only time will tell whether DPAs are judged a success or not.
The SFO also appears to have had some regulatory woes of its own on a different front ' including a data loss (in 2012), which led to an investigation resulting in a 98% recovery of material. The incident was reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which is the main UK data protection/privacy regulator, as personal data had apparently been inadvertently sent to a third-party. The report states that the ICO undertook a site visit at the end of May 2014 and that the SFO have had a further 10 instances of data-handling issues, although no more details were given. Data losses are an all-too-frequent occurrence these days, to which even top regulatory authorities are not immune.
Since the SFO's report was published, other significant additional activity has included the following:
Conclusion
It is clear from both the report and the activity of the last few weeks that those who think the Bribery Act 2010 is dead have spoken too soon. The SFO is right to focus its resources on the most complicated cases, and, the Crown Prosecution Service, which is the principal prosecuting authority (in England and Wales) responsible for conducting most prosecutions of alleged criminal offences, has also used bribery legislation to bring less complex cases to court. Complex cases take longer to reach court, especially given the need for cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies. It is likely that the next few months will see more activity as announcements are made in some of the SFO's ongoing investigations.
Andr' Bywater and Jonathan Armstrong, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, are commercial lawyers with Cordery Compliance in London, where they focus on regulatory compliance, processes and investigations. Reach them at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.
In the UK, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acts as an independent governmental authority tasked with investigating and prosecuting the most serious or complex fraud and domestic and overseas corruption. As readers might be aware, a few years ago the UK introduced a new legal regime to tackle corruption under the UK Bribery Act 2010, with some describing it as the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world.
David Green, CB QC, the Director of the SFO, recently published his annual report (2013-2014), which gives the opportunity to reflect on the recent past and look to the future concerning the SFO's activities, notably as regards corruption enforcement.
The Annual Report
In the areas of both fraud and corruption, the SFO ran a total of eight prosecutions of 18 defendants last year, with a conviction rate of 85%. It is relevant to note, however, that the numbers are quite small ' 11 defendants were convicted, of whom four pleaded guilty with seven being found guilty by a jury. The SFO also opened 12 investigations last year, and charged 35 defendants. Although from a U.S. perspective this might be considered to be minor, given the scale and complexity of the SFO's work, it actually is a modest success, and it should be borne in mind that the SFO essentially only tackles serious and complex cases.
As for the outlook for the future, the Director states that the SFO is “undertaking fewer but much larger and more complex investigations” and that the SFO has “expanded [its] analytical and intelligence capability, and currently [has] significant pre-investigation projects in development.”
Deferred Prosecution Agreements
What will be of particular interest to watch as a development is the use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) that came into operation earlier this year with the SFO's enforcement of the UK Bribery Act 2010. There have as yet been no public announcements of a DPA going through the system. DPAs are a tool for the SFO (and other government crime authorities) to try and reach a form of plea bargain with corporate offenders and thereby shortcut trials, time and cost. This process is similar to the U.S. plea-bargaining system, but it has major differences, most notably the oversight role of a judge who has to approve any proposed deal (in open court). It will probably take some time for DPAs to bed down and so only time will tell whether DPAs are judged a success or not.
The SFO also appears to have had some regulatory woes of its own on a different front ' including a data loss (in 2012), which led to an investigation resulting in a 98% recovery of material. The incident was reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which is the main UK data protection/privacy regulator, as personal data had apparently been inadvertently sent to a third-party. The report states that the ICO undertook a site visit at the end of May 2014 and that the SFO have had a further 10 instances of data-handling issues, although no more details were given. Data losses are an all-too-frequent occurrence these days, to which even top regulatory authorities are not immune.
Since the SFO's report was published, other significant additional activity has included the following:
Conclusion
It is clear from both the report and the activity of the last few weeks that those who think the Bribery Act 2010 is dead have spoken too soon. The SFO is right to focus its resources on the most complicated cases, and, the Crown Prosecution Service, which is the principal prosecuting authority (in England and Wales) responsible for conducting most prosecutions of alleged criminal offences, has also used bribery legislation to bring less complex cases to court. Complex cases take longer to reach court, especially given the need for cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies. It is likely that the next few months will see more activity as announcements are made in some of the SFO's ongoing investigations.
Andr' Bywater and Jonathan Armstrong, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, are commercial lawyers with Cordery Compliance in London, where they focus on regulatory compliance, processes and investigations. Reach them at [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
GenAI's ability to produce highly sophisticated and convincing content at a fraction of the previous cost has raised fears that it could amplify misinformation. The dissemination of fake audio, images and text could reshape how voters perceive candidates and parties. Businesses, too, face challenges in managing their reputations and navigating this new terrain of manipulated content.
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.