Is deferred prosecution the right way forward for the SFO?

Tony McClements, Head of Investigations at MKS Law, writes on the use of Deferred Prosecutions at the UK’s Serious Fraud Office

In the realm of fraud investigation and prosecution, a case involving the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities and nuances that surround Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs).

The SFO is currently attempting to enforce against a company for breaching a DPA, the first time this has happened since DPAs – a corporate settlement tool – were introduced in England and Wales.

DPAs allow a corporate entity charged with an economic crime to reach an agreement with a prosecutor and avoid the reputational and financial damage from a conviction. Certain conditions have to be adhered to and the matter is supervised by a judge.

I now believe that introducing two wings to the SFO may be the way forward. Fire-walling the criminal investigation team of the SFO from any DPA wing would make sense to me. I firmly believe that criminal prosecution, jail and subsequent proceeds of crime confiscation hearings remain the only real deterrent that makes rich fraudsters think twice.

Read the full article at GRIP.