News & what's on - Written by on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 6:28 - 1 Comment

Only 50 days until Christmas – Make all your wishes come true: SFO update…How to get a DPA

Print Friendly

Fairy GodmotherWe previously wrote about a speech given by Ben Morgan, Joint Head of Corruption at the SFO.  We used the image of the wolf from Little Red Riding Hood. 

Continuing our panto theme (Christmas after all is approaching…) in a speech a few days ago Ben outlined how all your seasonal wishes for a DPA could be made true, with some top tips to follow if you’d like one.

We have extracted the relevant portions of the SFO speech below and highlighted what we consider to be the most interesting.

The gist is:

  • Can I get a DPA if I don’t tell the SFO? If you wait until the SFO find out: a DPA is likely off the cards no matter what investigatory and remedial steps you have otherwise taken.
  • Timing of any Self Report – You should tell the SFO early when the mists begin to clear and not delay.
  • Don’t trample the crime scene. Engage with the SFO on the investigative steps.

We think the detail of Mr. Morgan’s speech represents a helpful and useful evolution of the SFO’s stance (since our original blog) and deals with some of the points we raised before.

One outstanding material point is whether the SFO would consider a report made under UK money laundering laws to qualify a company for a DPA in the context of a Self Report given a company will have informed UK law enforcement of a suspicion of misconduct (which has a lower evidential threshold to making a Self Report).

No doubt the answer will depend on the facts and the silence is probably helpful…

Extract from Mr. Morgan’s speech.

“This leads me to the question of our policies around engaging with us which is the main thing I wanted to talk about this morning, and really what we’re talking about is how to resolve a problem with us, if that is the decision you make. There are three points for the time I have left.

  1. Your first decision is do you tell us, or do you wait for us to come to you? Let me make one thing very clear; if we come to you, you can assume we have one thing on our mind, and that is looking for evidence to establish whether we should prosecute. I was speaking with someone from the Defence community recently who said, “yes, but surely if the company has done everything else you might want – compensated those who deserve it, fired everyone involved, checked other business lines to ensure the same problem doesn’t exist there, enhanced their compliance programme, etc., then if the only thing they haven’t done is come and tell you, surely they are still in line for leniency – it is not too late to get a DPA rather than a trial, for example”. Now I don’t want to deal in absolutes here, and I am cautious of generalising, but actually I think my default reaction to that would be no, sorry, we came to you; you should have come to us if you wanted options. My own view is that a judge would find it hard to look at that situation and conclude that a DPA rather than a prosecution was in the interests of justice. Or put the other way around, if a company comes to us and alerts us to conduct about which we otherwise didn’t know, it is hard to see how it would be in the public interest to prosecute as opposed to seek to resolve the matter through a DPA. Each case will turn on its facts, but if you want a DPA coming to us before we come to you is a very good start.
  2. So let’s say you’ve decided to try to control your risk, and come and speak to us. The next question is “when?”. At what point in the cycle of your analysis of what has happened do you report? Again, it is impossible to generalise, but the short answer is probably ‘a lot sooner than you think’. I am told there has been quite a lot of commentary on this in the legal blogs recently – people saying “the SFO is telling you not to investigate, just put yourself in their hands, and you should reject that outright”. This is wrong, so let me explain, again, what we expect. We expect early engagement. We don’t want to hear from you every five minutes, and we accept you need enough time and space to have an initial look at an allegation that comes to your attention. But nor do we want the first time we hear from you to be at the end of a major internal investigation, months if not years after the conduct in question has surfaced, and in particular after multiple witnesses have been interviewed and re-interviewed extensively. There is a balance between those two extremes that you will have to judge for yourselves, but the nearer the beginning of your own investigative work you speak to us, the happier we will be.
  3. The next question once you have decided to speak to us, and chosen your moment to do so, is what happens next. This is where the issue of cooperation really kicks in. We want you to engage with us on how investigation of what has happened takes place, and to respond to our interests in doing so. We are already building a track record with some law firms of how to do this together, in a constructive way that enables us to investigate fairly in respect of all corporate and individual suspects who may be involved, but also that where appropriate is sympathetic to the commercial context of your business, and your need to progress your understanding of what has happened and act on it for reasons unconnected to us. I hope those who are engaged with us at the moment in this way would agree that while we put the integrity of our investigation first, we can be trusted to work with a genuinely cooperative company in a professional, mutually respectful manner. We have people who understand your world and speak your language.

Last point then, some examples of the kind of things we might want to discuss with you in terms of framing an investigation when you come and talk to us. These include:

  • Identifying relevant witnesses;
  • Agreeing the sequencing of interviewing them with us; (we may want to speak to certain people first and we’d like to discuss that with you).
  • Another example is disclosure to us of the factual elements of interviews you’ve already conducted. You had a choice about whether to conduct those interviews in such a way as to create claims to privilege, but also having done so, a choice whether to assert those claims over the factual content. The way you deal with both of these decisions is something we will consider carefully in the context of your cooperation.
  • Provision of relevant contemporary documentation is another example; in a timely manner, in a suitable digital format and arranged sensibly.
  • Alerting us to potentially relevant sources of documentation. If we are obviously interested in a particular issue and serve you with a formal or informal request for documents relating to it, if there is a search term or repository of information that you know about but we don’t – tell us. This is a really good example of pro-active cooperation, doing that bit more than just meeting your legal obligation to respond to a section 2 notice, for example. That is the difference between cooperating with us, in the way we want, and being investigated by us in the traditional way.
  • Another example is if you are interviewing someone, either before you’ve spoken to us or after, ask the right questions. I’ve seen transcripts of interviews conducted by law firms that are almost laughable in the way they build up to an issue, set up an obvious and crucial next question, but don’t ask it. If you purport to investigate, you need to do so in a properly inquisitional way.
  • And finally for now, the handling of data – an entire speech in itself really, but just think about how you do it, bearing in mind the kind of issues we will obviously have to understand – integrity of images, location of data, continuity of evidence, format in which it is supplied etc. These are all things where you have options in what you do, and the ability to make our work simpler.”

[OUR EMPHASIS]

 

Share Button


1 Comment

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Corruption Currents: Australia-Terrorism Finance Reports Triple - Background Check Group
Nov 5, 2015 15:30

[…] on the purchase of the farm and defense teaches about compliance in Australia. Thebriberyact.com indicates how to get a deferred prosecution agreement in the UK Mike Volkov defines culture. The […]

Brought to you by...

Barry Vitou &
Richard Kovalevsky Q.C.

The views expressed on this website are those of Barry Vitou & Richard Kovalevsky QC and/or our guest authors from time to time. Please see our terms of use

in association with...

Our Tweets

Sunday, June 11, 2017 8:18

Opinion: As debate shifts from future of SFO to future of Theresa May we say: At last, fund the SFO properly. https://t.co/PwuCqHPkTq

Friday, June 9, 2017 12:21

SFO cat uses up another life! SFO set to stay after Theresa May's authority is seriously undermined.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:44

Opinion: Conservatives must answer two basic questions about the plan to merge the SFO into the NCA https://t.co/OREkjacH2H

Thursday, May 18, 2017 21:07

Announcement of SFO merger into the NCA must be followed with detailed plans and assurances to SFO plans now https://t.co/Sbq5zt9yWP

Friday, January 27, 2017 16:13

Why people bribe. What stops them. And what to do if you’re worried you’ve bribed someone. https://t.co/tYdE9rhoOz