David Corker studies the events that led up to the SFO’s recent backtrack
In a surprise and unheralded move, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) last week published new guidance and policy on how it will deal with cases of suspected domestic and overseas bribery. Neither the SFO’s new director, David Green, nor any other spokesperson was available to introduce and explain the thinking behind this announcement. So how this initiative differs from the now redundant July 2009 guidance and to what extent it represents a change of strategy is unclear. Presumably, such uncertainty is something the SFO regards as desirable.
To understand what this change might mean, it is necessary to put recent events at the SFO into a wider perspective.
Civilly where possible
During Richard Alderman’s tenure as SFO director between 2008–2012, the aim was to encourage resolution by avoiding litigation. What he emphasised from the outset was the probable reward on offer for self-reporting in the guise of a non-prosecution outcome. Initially, he went a long way in this direction
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
