header-logo header-logo

07 July 2011
Issue: 7473 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Bribery Act & the SFO

Experts predict successful start for new anti-bribery law

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) will not bring an investigation under the new anti-bribery legislation until it has identified a case with a huge probability of success, according to a high-profile panel of legal experts.

Panelists at the Bribery Act roundtable hosted by NLJ on 1 July—the day the legislation came into force—believe that the likely first target for the SFO will be a small or medium enterprise or a whistleblower case involving a large UK multinational.

Richard Lissack QC of Outer Temple Chambers said: “The SFO will identify a case with a very high chance of conviction—to start with a losing prosecution would be unthinkable.”

The panel also included Robert Amaee, of counsel at Covington & Burling and the former head of anti-corruption/proceeds of crime at the SFO; Freshfield Bruckhaus Deringer partners Paul Lomas and Mark Sansom, and Drew Macaulay, director of business development at First Advantage Litigation Consulting.

Sansom said: “The SFO has been talking tough and has good political reasons to do so. But I doubt they will want to take a contentious point to court—such as a case testing the limits of their jurisdiction under the Act—and risk losing. We can expect them to look for a slam-dunk case as the first target. They may be particularly keen on any case involving a non-UK company which does business in the UK, in order to demonstrate the ‘level playing field’ under the Act.”

The comments came as evidence emerges that UK companies are still not taking the twice-delayed new anti-Bribery legislation seriously despite having years to prepare for it. A recent European Fraud Survey carried out by Ernst & Young found that one in seven staff polled at large UK companies were willing to offer cash payments to win business with just over half being aware of anti-bribery policy at their organisation.

Full coverage of the panel discussions will appear in an NLJ Bribery Act special later in the summer.

Issue: 7473 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll