Deferred Prosecution Agreements are here to stay

28 May 2019
Author: JHA

In a recent interview, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Lisa Osofsky, has given her support to the continued use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) as an effective tool in the fight against economic crime.

DPAs, which are essentially American-style corporate plea bargains, came into use in the UK in 2015.  They allow companies who admit wrongdoing to reach an agreement with the prosecutor, under the supervision of a judge.  That agreement allows the prosecution to be suspended for a defined period provided the organisation meets certain specified conditions, which usually include fines and monitoring, avoiding the additional damage a conviction would likely bring.

DPAs have come under criticism since their introduction in the UK as some say they enable companies to engage in and admit criminal conduct yet avoid prosecution.  Also there have been questions asked as to how effective a tool DPAs are to incentivise companies to self-report, as the UK lacks the strong deterrents to economic crime available in the US.

Osofsky claims that, since their introduction, DPAs have been effective in ensuring companies ‘clean up’ their act.  For example, in 2017, two major companies, Tesco and Rolls-Royce, agreed DPAs with the SFO, paying £129 million and £500 million respectively.

However, since Osofsky took over at the SFO in September 2018 a re-trial of former Tesco directors has collapsed and an investigation into individuals linked to the Rolls-Royce case was closed.  Despite this she claims that even if there is not enough evidence to prosecute individuals over the misconduct outlined in DPAs, they still serve an important purpose: ‘Corporates (are run) by individuals. But how do you reprimand, discipline, punish bad corporate behavior…? I see (cases against companies and individuals) as two very different things and I think the role of the DPA is to make sure that the company engages with prosecutors, comes forward and cleans up its act.’

Osofsky declined to comment on whether some of the cases she inherited will be closed in the near future.  These include investigations into, among others, Rio Tinto, Airbus, British American Tobacco, Tata Steel and ENRC.  She did however say that for cases to be impactful they need not involve large companies and that any company successfully prosecuted is progress.

JHA specialises in investigations, litigation and dispute resolution. We bring together leading barristers, solicitors and forensic accountants, to support clients at every stage and have deep experience of working with regulators including the SFO, FCA and HMRC.

Return to List of Articles by UK Lawyers on Tax Disputes, Tax Litigation, HMRC Tax Appeal Return to Listings
Left Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London

Our Insights

Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

JHA ranked in top tier again in Legal 500 UK 2025

We are happy to announce that JHA's Tax Disputes Team has again been ranked as Tier 1 by Legal 500 today, a ranking we have proudly achieved every year since we began in 2013. A special congratulations to Graham Aaronson KC who has again been recognised in the Hall of Fame category, Iain MacWhannell (ranked as a Leading Partner) and Mei Wong (ranked as a Leading Associate).

This is the latest successful ranking, following previous top-tier rankings in Chambers UK Legal Guide 2024 and Chambers High Net Worth Guide 2024.

Read More
Insights from UK Tax Dispute Lawyers & HMRC Tax litigation

Armour Veterinary Group v HMRC – Warning for Partnership Personnel Changes?

In this decision, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) dismissed an appeal against discovery assessments which disallowed amortisation relief claimed by the Appellant company for three types of goodwill acquired from a partnership. The decision examined the applicability of each of the circumstances set out in s882 CTA 2009 before concluding none of them had been satisfied. It also provided guidance on the meaning of carrying on a business pursuant to s884 CTA 2009. In rejecting the appeal, the FTT reached a number of key conclusions:

  1. partners can potentially rebut the presumption that individual partners do not own the goodwill of the business (in whole or part) by expressly recording the division in a partnership agreement;
  2. whether a partner is an equity or salaried partner has no bearing on whether they can be treated as carrying on the business for the purpose of s884;
  3. when determining whether and when a partner carries on a business, the FTT will consider, inter alia, (1) if they are in a partnership as per the definition in s1 of the Partnership Act 1890 and (2) their role in the day-to-day running of the practice;
  4. a fundamental aspect of the self-assessment regime is that taxpayers must ensure that they retain adequate records (backed up by an external valuation as relevant in the case of a goodwill transfer) sufficient to support the information provided in their returns, including evidence to support claims made for relief.

Read More

Right Button on Tax Dispute & Tax Litigation Lawyers in London