Serious Fraud Office in UK Law
-
R (Corner House Research and Another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
“
It is accepted that the decisions of the Director are not immune from review by the courts, but authority makes plain that only in highly exceptional cases will the court disturb the decisions of an independent prosecutor and investigator: R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p C [1995] 1 Cr App R 136, 141; R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p Manning [2001] QB 330, para 23; R (Bermingham and others) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2006] EWHC 200 (Admin), [2007] QB 727, paras 63-64; Mohit v Director of Public Prosecutions of Mauritius [2006] UKPC 20, [2006] 1 WLR 3343, paras 17 and 21 citing and endorsing a passage in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji in Matalulu v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] 4 LRC 712, 735-736; Sharma v Brown-Antoine and others [2006] UKPC 57, [2007] 1 WLR 780, para 14(1)-(6).
The reasons why the courts are very slow to interfere are well understood. They are, first, that the powers in question are entrusted to the officers identified, and to no one else. No other authority may exercise these powers or make the judgments on which such exercise must depend. Secondly, the courts have recognised (as it was described in the cited passage of Matalulu)
-
Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
“
The policy of the immunity is to enable people to speak freely without fear of being sued, whether successfully or not. If this object is to be achieved, the person in question must know at the time he speaks whether or not the immunity will attach. If it depends upon the contingencies of whether he will be called as a witness, the value of the immunity is destroyed.
-
R (Evans and Another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office
“
In my judgment, as Mr Qureshi submitted, having regard to the treaty obligations it is right to start from the position that the letter of request is not a disclosable document, but justice must be done to those who are the subject of a section 2 notice pursuant to a letter of request and the consequential request from the Secretary of State to the Director of the Serious Fraud Office pursuant to section 4(2A) of the Act.
-
Darker and Others v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police
“
The purpose of the immunity is to protect witnesses against claims made against them for something said or done in the course of giving or preparing to give evidence.
-
Gokal v Serious Fraud Office
“
As has been said many times in the authorities, it is not enough for a defendant to come to court and say that his assets are inadequate to meet the confiscation order, unless at the same time he condescends to demonstrate what has happened since the making of the order to the realisable property found by the trial judge to have existed when the order was made; see R -vC, unreported, 18 November 1997 and R -vW, unreported, 29 January 1998.
-
The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd
“
However, the situation is rather different where the investigation is into suspected criminality. One critical difference between civil proceedings and a criminal prosecution is that there is no inhibition on the commencement of civil proceedings where there is no foundation for them, other than the prospect of sanctions being imposed after the event.
-
Criminal Justice Act 1987
... ... for the investigation of and trials for fraud; and for connected purposes.[15th May 1987] ... Part I: Fraud ... Serious Fraud Office ... 1: The Serious Fraud Office ... ...
-
The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017
... ... of business operates a currency exchange office, transmits money (or any representation of ... 8 and paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (c.27). # F616 Words in reg ... ) ; and(b) that process is secure from fraud and misuse and capable of providing F402assurance ... ...
-
Investigatory Powers Act 2016
... ... common law offence of misconduct in public office, and(vi) elsewhere in the law ... (6) The ... interest in preventing or detecting serious crime,(c) other considerations which are relevant ... (investigation powers of Director of Serious Fraud Office) , after subsection (10) , ... ...
- Serious Fraud Office (Witnesses' etc. Allowances) Regulations 1988
-
Serious Fraud Office Report
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has received a larger number of cases for the third consecutive year. This perhaps reflects the increasingly common affliction of fraud in England. 1995–96 has provid...
-
Interview with George Staple, Director of the Serious Fraud Office
The Serious Fraud Office was set up on the recommendation of the Roskill Committee by the Criminal Justice Act 1987. It is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of serious and complex f...
-
New Zealand: A Current Analysis of the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office
The New Zealand Serious Fraud Office (NZSFO) was set up in 1989 in response to issues arising out of the 1980s financial crisis, in particular the share‐market crash of 1987. In the short period of...
-
Fraud after Roskill: a view from the Serious Fraud Office
Describes the 1985 Roskill Committee Report on Fraud Trials as a success: of its 112 recommendations only two were not implemented. Explains why Roskill is nevertheless often criticised: there is a...
-
Fraudsters Beware: Ontario Launches Serious Fraud Office
Ontario has established a new agency to combat fraud. The Serious Fraud Office (the “SFO”), modelled on the UK’s anti-fraud agency of the same name, will place police investigators and fraud prosec...
-
UK Serious Fraud Office releases DPA guidance
CEP Magazine (January 2021) - The United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office published new guidance related to deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs). The guidance, nested in the office’s internal S...
-
Serious Fraud Office Reaches an Agreement with Standard Bank
The first deferred prosecution agreement in the UK was finalised between the Serious Fraud Office and Standard Bank, potentially paving the way for future similar agreements.
-
UK’s Serious Fraud Office survives – but for how long?
This post was written by Simon D. Hart. After months of speculation, and rumoured turf wars within the UK government, it has today been confirmed that the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) will not...
-
Apply to extend a representation order
Crown Court forms including the form to extend a representation order.... ... can only be made in cases where the Serious Fraud Office is the prosecuting authority ... ... ...
-
Form COP44A
Court of Protection forms including the COP1 application to make decisions on someone's behalf.... ... criminal proceedings for fraud can be brought against you ... Only the ... • injunctions ... • serious medical treatment ... • where there is a ... or check the Yellow Pages for your local office ... ...