Niall Hearty, Of Financial Crime Specialists Rahman Ravelli, Explains Why The Quashing Of Another Bribery Conviction Is A Significant Setback For The Serious Fraud Office

RR
Rahman Ravelli Solicitors

Contributor

Rahman Ravelli is known for its sophisticated, bespoke and robust representation of corporates, senior business executives and professionals in national and international matters.
It is one of the fastest-growing and most highly-regarded, market-leading legal practices in its field. This is due to its achievements in criminal and regulatory investigations and large-scale commercial disputes involving corporate wrongdoing and multi-jurisdictional enforcement, and its asset recovery, internal investigations and compliance expertise.
The firm’s global reach, experienced litigators and network of trusted partner firms ensure it can address legal matters for clients anywhere in the world. It combines astute business intelligence and shrewd legal expertise with proactive, creative strategies to secure the best possible outcome for all its clients.
Rahman Ravelli’s achievements in certain cases have even helped shape the law. It is regularly engaged by other law firms to provide independent advice.

Failures by the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) led to a second man's conviction being quashed in a high-profile bribery case.
United Kingdom Criminal Law

Failures by the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) led to a second man's conviction being quashed in a high-profile bribery case.

In March 2021, Paul Bond was jailed for three and a half years following an SFO investigation into how Monaco-based oil consultancy Unaoil won contracts for its clients in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.

But the Court of Appeal ruled that the conviction of Bond, who was a former manager at Dutch energy services company SBM Offshore, should be set aside due to the SFO's failure to disclose evidence. The ruling came three months after the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of Bond's former co-defendant, former Unaoil manager Ziad Akle, for the same reason. It means that half of the four convictions that the SFO secured in this investigation - which involved allegations of payments totalling more than $17 million - have now been quashed.

This latest decision led the pressure group Spotlight on Corruption to say that the SFO had been very badly damaged by the judgment, as it followed the collapse of the 2021 fraud trial of former Serco executives. That trial collapse was also due to disclosure failures.

The possibility of a prosecuting agency failing to disclose evidence in a trial was one of the reasons given for the implementation of the Criminal Procedural and Investigations Act in 1996 (CPIA). CPIA's arrival followed a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice dating back to the 1970's. For convictions in major cases, like that of Paul Bond, to be set aside due to disclosure failures seems wholly avoidable.

This latest blow to the SFO comes during a difficult period for the agency. There is a review of the SFO's disclosure failings in the Akle case being conducted by former High Court judge and ex-director of public prosecutions, Sir David Calvert-Smith. SFO Director Lisa Osofsky was criticised for being less than transparent and helpful when she appeared to answer questions before the parliamentary Justice Select Committee, just days after the quashing of Bond's conviction.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More