UK Bribery Act – There's a New Constable in Town

by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

[author: Raymond L. Sweigart ]

Directorship of the UK Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") passed this month to David Green QC. Mr. Green joins the SFO from private practice, where he was a barrister specializing in serious crime. He also previously served as the first director of the UK's Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. Mr. Green has taken office promising, in remarks to the Financial Times, to "rebalance the relationship between prosecution and civil settlement" and focus on "strategically significant cases". This would suggest a departure in approach from that of Richard Alderman, Mr. Green’s predecessor.

Mr. Green's statements also follow closely on the heels of publication of an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development working group report highly critical of the UK's implementation of the Bribery Convention, and critical as well of Mr. Alderman's enforcement of the Bribery Act. (OECD Working Group; Phase 3 Report on Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in the United Kingdom.) Much of the OECD report’s criticism appears validated by Mr. Green’s remarks, in which he concedes that "the perception has emerged over the last few years that perhaps there is more willingness to compromise than to prosecute". It looks as if he is out to change that perception. As Mr. Green puts it: "We are primarily a crime-fighting agency and we've got to remember that". Mr. Green has further indicated that he is looking for "significant strategic" cases which threaten confidence in the City and British business, and that he is eager to bring the first "big" Bribery Act case.

OECD Criticisms of the SFO and the Ministry of Justice

The OECD working group's fundamental position is that the SFO's statutory mandate is and must be to conduct criminal investigations and prosecutions. There appears to be no room, as far as the working group is concerned, for the SFO to advise companies on either specific past transactions or corporate measures to prevent future bribery. The working group report goes so far as to suggest that the SFO has created a potential conflict of interest for itself in acting as both legal advisor and prosecutor. Also subject to criticism is the SFO’s entering into de facto non-prosecution agreements through its advice on company responses to past misconduct. The OECD recommends that the SFO stick to law enforcement and leave any advisory role to other government departments.

The working group also criticises a number of specific cases in which it considers the SFO's approach to have been far too lenient. After noting that all corporate bribery cases reported since Innospec have been settled by civil consent agreements, it criticises as fundamentally "unsound" the SFO's "Approach to Dealing with Overseas Corruption” by settling self-reported bribery cases "civilly wherever possible." It urges that the definition of “self-reporting” be tightened to exclude cases where the approach to the SFO follows rather than precedes referrals from other sources or police raids, and that criminal sanctions, including the prosecution of individuals, should more often be sought when plainly available. It also found troubling cases where the stated factual predicate appeared either implausible or flatly contrary to publicly known or admitted facts. Also coming in for criticism were the confidentiality clauses used in the SFO’s agreements with corporate offenders.

The working group's criticisms did not stop with the SFO. It also found the Guidance to Commercial Organisations, published by the Ministry of Justice, to be overly lenient in its approach. A pointed attack was launched against the GCO’s illustrations of "reasonable and proportionate" hospitality and promotional expenditure. Coming in for particular scorn was the scenario in which a company pays for flights and accommodation to allow foreign public officials to meet UK executives in New York, the package to include fine dining and baseball game tickets for "an official and his or her partner". While the GCO takes the position that this situation is unlikely to constitute bribery, the working group (which added the italics) to the contrary felt this was "unadvisable and high-risk activity under almost all circumstances".

The Report further criticised the failure of the GCO to distinguish in various scenarios between private entities and public officials and the substantially increased risk of corruption in the latter cases. Also criticised was the GCO's reliance on whether an expenditure is "commensurate with the reasonable and proportionate norms for a particular industry", since many industries, according to the working group, suffer a high incidence of corrupt payments and that everyone else is doing it should not be a measure of culpability. The working group also suggested that the government, in fact, has no information available to it or even methodology in place to evaluate industry sector norms.

There is, of course, an additional caution to reliance on the GCO. While the Joint Prosecution Guidance requires prosecutors to take its provisions into account in considering cases against commercial organisations for failure to prevent bribery, the judges interviewed by the working group declared themselves unlikely to give the guidance much regard when interpreting the Act. The judges appear to consider its status similar to that of an academic text, and noted that government statements about legislation are "normally not of great relevance".

The SFO Response

The SFO promptly undertook to review its self-reporting policy in response to the views of the working group as well as similar concerns expressed by the judiciary. Indeed, it may well have been the latter that were more meaningful, since the UK has not always accepted or reacted to OECD working group criticisms. The SFO is considering whether self-reporting should be rewarded with reduced criminal penalties rather than a purely civil sanction. Mr. Green has now confirmed that he, too, "would like to rebalance the relationship between prosecution and civil settlement", although he recognises that "[a] corporation might say: 'if we come and self-report we might get prosecuted.' Well, they might get prosecuted". Mr. Green does say, however, that he is 100% in favour of deferred prosecution arrangements, scheduled for introduction sometime towards the end of this year, but that they will be only one of the SFO’s available options. It remains to be seen whether the judges will approve deferred prosecutions as a form of criminal sanction.

One SFO policy which the working group did approve was the recently announced decision to seek recovery from shareholders of dividends alleged to have been paid out of the proceeds of illegal activities. This policy follows the recovery on consent order of dividends paid to Mabey Engineering (Holdings) Ltd, by its subsidiary Mabey & Johnson, that had been derived from contracts which breached UN sanctions in Iraq. The SFO has stated that it will focus particularly on institutional shareholders who can reasonably be held to exercise greater due diligence over their subsidiaries’ activities.

The Realities

While Mr. Green’s arrival as SFO director certainly appears to usher in a far more aggressive prosecution policy rather than the pragmatic, and some would say lenient, approach of the last four years, his task will not be easy. His SFO will operate under a much reduced budget, down some 26% from the 2008-09 fiscal year to £33.9m and due to fall further by 2014-15 to £30.5m. While there has been some suggestion that the SFO may be able to negotiate to retain the proceeds of its prosecutions, it currently does not receive any portion of any criminal fine imposed and only a small percentage of the proceeds of a confiscation order. Mr. Green has stated that he is "all in favour of prosecuting authorities being funded, to a greater or lesser extent, by money taken from criminals", but that revenue stream is not yet available to the SFO.

Thus, the extent to which Mr. Green can realistically ignore the budgetary necessity to cut deals to avoid costly trials remains to be seen. It is, of course, clear that he can be expected to brandish his “tough guy” image to negotiate from a position of strength. It also seems clear that he is now looking for some big targets to prove his point, with all indications that his approach will be significantly harsher than that of his predecessor both in word and likely in deed as well.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.