Deferred Prosecution Agreements are here to stay
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.
A yellow card for footballers and their agents……let’s bring in another match official
There has been long running tension between HMRC and the way that footballers and their agents are remunerated. As the Professional Footballers’ Association wade into the debate, Helen McGhee discusses the problems arising from agents’ fees and image rights.
Keeping Your Confidences
Helen McGhee considers the legal rights which allow individuals and companies to resist the disclosure of confidential evidence, and the limitations surrounding legal privilege.
The new powers tackling promoters of avoidance schemes
Under new proposals in draft Finance Bill 2021, HMRC will have wider information powers and be able to impose tougher sanctions on those who continue to promote or enable tax avoidance schemes. Whilst a robust approach to tackle unacceptable behaviour by a minority of promoters is entirely welcome, the new rules would arguably impose unnecessary administrative burdens on those operating within the law.
Draft Finance Bill 2020–21—promoters and enablers of tax avoidance schemes
Helen McGhee, senior associate at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, shares her insights on the Draft Finance Bill 2020–21 and its impact on promoters and enablers of tax avoidance schemes.
Apple and Ireland Win €13bn State Aid Appeal
The General Court of the European Union has today annulled the Commission’s decision regarding two Irish tax rulings in favour of Apple. The Commission had considered that the two rulings constituted State Aid, granting Apple €13bn in unlawful tax advantages.