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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll