UK: Ethical Business Conduct: An Enforcement Perspective

Last Updated: 26 March 2014
Article by Adam Greaves

At a recent seminar held at the offices of PwC, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green CB QC, made an important speech in relation to the role of the SFO.  He says its role is to investigate and to prosecute the "top most tier of serious and complex fraud and bribery".  However, he wished to emphasise that the SFO is not a regulator, nor an educator, an adviser, a confessor or an apologist.  He pointed out that the SFO is not funded for any of those activities.  Mr Green stated that the SFO is a law enforcement agency dealing with "top end, well-heeled, well-lawyered crime".  Therefore, he concludes that the SFO does not do lectures on ethics and does not issue guidance on how not to rob banks.

He then went on to set out his reasoning why a company should self-report suspected criminal misconduct to the SFO.  These were his reasons: 

  • Self-reporting does not automatically lead to criminal prosecution.  The SFO applies the full code test to material arising from a self-report.  A formal criminal investigation is likely to have been launched by the SFO to test the material and the scale of the offending.  The available evidence may well pass the evidential test.  But if the company has taken appropriate disciplinary action against those responsible, made appropriate amendments to its compliance regime, compensated victims, and genuinely and proactively cooperated with the SFO investigation, it is hard to see how it would be in the public interest to prosecute the company, as opposed to individuals.
  • A self-report at the very least significantly mitigates the chances of a corporate being prosecuted.  It opens up the possibility of a DPA or civil recovery.
  • There is a moral and reputation imperative to self-report: it is the right thing to do and demonstrates that the corporate is serious about behaving ethically.
  • If the corporate chooses to bury the misconduct rather than self-report, the risks attendant on discovery are truly unquantifiable.  And of course, there will be the long, anxious watchers of the night when complicit senior managers lay awake and fret about being found out.
  • There are so many potential channels through which corporate crime can come to light: whistle blowers; disgruntled counterparties; cheated competing companies; other CJS agencies in the United Kingdom; overseas agencies in communication with SFO; and the SFO's own developing intelligence capability (expanding, analytical, pro-active and now linked to our national intelligence agencies).
  • If criminality is buried and then discovered by any of those roots, the corporate will pay a heavy price in terms of shareholder outrage, counterparty and competitor distrust, reputational damage, regulatory action and likely prosecution of both individuals and the corporate.
  • Burying such information is likely to involve criminal offences related to money laundering under sections 327 to 329 of POCA.

So therefore Mr Green concludes that there are very strong arguments in favour of self-reporting.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Mr Green then proceeds to analyse what opportunities are presented by the recent arrival of DPAs in the United Kingdom to a company which is minded to self-report. 

He reminds us that prior to the existence of DPAs, the options open to the SFO were that it could prosecute or not prosecute a company, or possibly launch an action for civil recoveries.  If convicted a company could be fined or wound up.  He pointed out that this might well involve severe "collateral damage" to those who have no part in a criminality prosecuted, for example employees, shareholders or pensioners. 

DPAs provide an alternative response to some corporate criminality, a response which avoids that collateral damage.  He believes that the route to a DPA should also be cheaper, quicker and more certain for all parties. 

Although DPAs have been lifted from the US model, he points out that in the US DPAs have no statutory foundation but that they have developed through practice.  The downside is that some judges in the US feel that they are used as "rubber stamps" for deals agreed between the prosecutor and the corporate, and that the public may perceive a DPA as a "sweetheart deal" which lacks transparency. 

He considers therefore that the British model for DPAs has been adapted to the British context.  He points out the following: 

  • It is a creature of statute, explained by a published code of conduct;
  • It is available only in relation to corporates, not individuals;
  • It is designed to take account of the frustration expressed by very senior judges in the Innospec and BAE Systems hearings that they have been presented with a fait accompli as to the penalty agreed between the prosecution and defence;
  • The whole process, from preliminary hearing to application for approval to pronouncement of approval, takes place under judicial supervision;
  • The judge has to be persuaded that the DPA is in the interests of justice, reasonable, fair and proportionate;
  • The final hearing (the pronouncement of approval of the DPA, with reasons) will almost always be in open court;
  • It is by invitation only;
  • It is not a panacea;
  • Prosecution remains an option and the prosecution of individuals remains likely;
  • As experience is built up by all parties, this will generate consistency and therefore predictability around the likelihood of achieving a DPA.

Problems created by DPAs

Mr Green considers that some of the problems may include:

  • Whether the 30% guideline discount on the financial penalty (the same as that given on a guilty plea) is enough;
  • The absence of any prohibition in the Act, or Code on the supply by the prosecutor of information to third parties where permitted by law;
  • Most of all the identification principle in the English law of corporate liability.  This means that, in order to prove corporate criminal liability, the prosecutor must prove complicity in the criminality on the part of the controlling mind (board members) of the corporate.  The evidential chain tends to dry up above middle management.  The problem may be this: if prosecution of a corporate is so difficult, why should a company enter into a DPA?;
  • Mr Green has previously suggested that the situation could easily be remedied by an amendment to section 7 of the Bribery Act to create the corporate offence of a company failing to prevent acts of financial crime by its employees (on which we have blogged here).  He believes that the UK needs to tackle corporate criminal liability in order for DPAs to have maximum bite.

Reasons why a company should seek and enter into a DPA

Mr Green offers the following reasons:

  • It avoids prosecution and the stigma of a possible conviction;
  • Whilst a statement of facts must be agreed, there is no requirement for an admission of guilty;
  • It can be in private until the final declaration;
  • It speeds up the investigative process and saves on the costs and paralysis attendant on a full criminal investigation;
  • It permits of at least some influence and control by the corporate, certainly more than that presented by a full criminal investigation;
  • It provides closure and certainty;
  • It will improve the company's culture of compliance and prevention;
  • It may avoid the disqualification from tendering to EU public contracts following a conviction (although there is a discretion in the EU to disqualify an individual where there has been an act of grave professional misconduct in the course of his business or profession).

Mr Green goes on to say that what the SFO would expect from a corporate which was hoping for a DPA would be "cooperation, cooperation, and cooperation".

The Code of Practice lists, non-exhaustively, factors which will militate against prosecution and towards a DPA.  These can be found here.


In conclusion, Mr Green believes that corporate self-reporting makes sense, and that DPAs, whilst not perfect, represent a very useful addition to existing arrangements, but that maximum cooperation on the part of the corporate and its lawyers is an intrinsic part of the DPA process. 

We at the BriberyLibrary concur with the Director's reasoning in favour of self-reporting.  When you consider all the risks of the alternative, in 99% of cases, it must be the right decision for the corporate.  In practice, however, it can take some time to appreciate fully the benefits of confessing one's sins.  Self-reporting certainly is not within the normal instincts of white collar crime lawyers, let alone their clients – it goes against the instincts of denying everything, and forcing the prosecution to prove its case  and, in addition, there has been much less of a culture of "plea bargaining" in the UK, than there is in the US, for example.  Everyone within the profession, lawyers, prosecutors, judges as well as clients will be watching keenly to see how the first few DPAs proceed.  There will be a learning curve for all concerned. We too await developments with interest.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions