We are now two years into Nick Ephgrave's tenure at the helm of the Serious Fraud Office, a role which he vowed to use to put the previous failings of the SFO behind it, and to focus on reshaping the SFO into a more proactive and agile investigating and prosecuting agency.
This month also marks the coming into force of the long awaited new corporate criminal offence of failing to prevent fraud. At this important juncture, our business crime team has taken a look back at how this year has unfolded for the SFO so far, and considers what may come next.
A man with a plan
In April, Ephgrave's SFO published its annual business plan, addressing the agency's strategic aims for the 25/26 business year. The objectives set out included:
(i) A continued focus on taking bolder and pragmatic decisions;
(ii)Delivery of refreshed corporate cooperation guidance for engaging with the SFO and advancing plans for whistleblower incentivisation reform;
(iii) Maintaining and developing cross-border collaboration with other law enforcement agencies; and
(iv) Progressing disclosure reform, including the roll out of technology assisted review (TAR) within operational divisions.
Since the plan's publication, a number of developments indicate that these strategic objectives are now being put into practice.
"Bolder and pragmatic decisions"
Ephgrave has made clear his intention to accelerate the pace of SFO investigations, and has also emphasised the importance of closing cases that are unlikely to proceed in order to reallocate resources.
Last year we saw these priorities reflected in a number of new and fast-moving investigations along with timely charging decisions, and the closure of some long-running investigations. The SFOs' annual report and accounts published in July reported that in the year ending 31 March 2025, the SFO opened eight investigations, closed eight, made six arrests and executed four "major multi-site operations" to seize material. Eleven charges were also issued across two cases. More broadly, the SFO reported an active caseload of around 130 cases, including criminal, civil, proceeds of crime, and international assistance cases.
That momentum appears to be continuing. So far this year the SFO has announced new investigations into Blu-3 and former associates of the global construction firm Mace Group (April 2025) and Rockfire Investment Finance Limited (June 2025), brought charges against an individual in the investigation into the aircraft parts supplier AOG Technics, and announced the investigation into United Insurance Brokers Limited (UIBL) by confirming charges against the entity for failing to prevent bribery (June 2025). If this charge is contested and proceeds to trial, it will be the first time that an SFO failure to prevent bribery charge has been put to a jury, and may provide a valuable opportunity to obtain some judicial guidance on the scope of the 'adequate procedures' defence, something which will become all the more important given the expansion of the 'FTP' model (see further below).
In July this year, the SFO also announced charges against six individuals for fraud related offences in its long-running "Operation Hazel", an investigation into self-invested personal pensions opened in 2017. This might be an indication that, in addition to pushing ahead with new investigations, the agency is looking to tie up some of its legacy cases along the way.
Corporate Co-operation Guidance
The SFO published revised corporate co-operation guidance in late April. The guidance offers a clearer picture of what corporates can expect in return for self-reporting misconduct and, in particular, the circumstances that may lead to an offer to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), rather than the commencement of a prosecution. The guidance clarifies that, absent exceptional circumstances, corporates that self-report promptly and cooperate fully will be invited to negotiate a DPA. See our detailed analysis of the guidance here.
The guidance arrives at a time when the SFO's use of DPAs has come to a standstill, with the last SFO DPA being finalised in 2021. With this in mind, it seems likely that the SFO is seeking to drive self-reporting in order to reinvigorate the DPA regime.
While the guidance provides greater insight into the SFO's approach, it remains to be seen whether the promise of a DPA will provide sufficient incentive for corporates to self-report. Corporates may still decide to adopt a wait and see approach in the hope that the SFO's resources will not stretch so far as to uncover any misconduct for itself. Ephgrave's response to any corporates considering this such approach was unequivocal: "How lucky do you feel?"
Cross-border collaboration
True to its word, this year has also seen the SFO build on its relationship with international agencies. In March, the SFO announced a new anti-corruption alliance with France's Parquet National Financier (PNF) and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland to tackle international bribery and corruption. The SFO has also strengthened its international reach by joining the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre last month, a group housed within the UK's National Crime Agency. This membership is hoped to grant the SFO access to international partners "in the fight against grand corruption involving politically exposed persons," enhancing its capacity to gather intelligence and evidence on overseas corruption.
In recent months, Ephgrave also met with the head of the DOJ (following the release of the DOJ's new white collar crime enforcement strategy) to reinforce the international relationship between the agencies and reaffirm their commitment to tackle financial crime.
Independent review of disclosure
Improving disclosure processes is a key area of focus for the SFO. In addition to the roll out of TAR, Part 1 of an independent review by Jonathan Fisher KC was published in March this year titled "Disclosure in the Digital Age". The review considered the effectiveness of the current disclosure regime in criminal cases, along with potential legislative and non-legislative improvements.
The report discusses findings within the following seven themes: digital material, application of the disclosure regime, trial preparation, judiciary and courts, complainants and victims, training and learning and the 'keys to the warehouse' approach to disclosure, and contains a total of 45 recommendations. Fisher noted that he hoped his report would "aid the creation of a modern disclosure regime fit for today's digital age, enabling courts to facilitate swift justice and safeguarding the right to fair trial." His recommendations for reform include the use of technology to lessen administrative burdens. In this regard, Fisher proposes the establishment of a new Criminal Justice Digital Disclosure Working Group to consider the use of developing technology to assist with disclosure. Also recommended is an Intensive Disclosure Regime, in order to facilitate more proactive case management for serious and complex cases, along with new national learning standards (with topics to include the criminal justice system and disclosure) to be delivered to all law enforcement agencies. Our detailed analysis of the report can be found here.
What can we expect from the SFO during the rest of 2025?
Widening corporate criminal liability – failure to prevent fraud offence finally comes into force
In addition to improving internal working practices and encouraging corporate cooperation, significant legislative changes are now in focus for the agency. The introduction of the Economic Corporate Crime and Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) strengthens the SFO's ability to prosecute fraud and corporate crime offences as a result of two key changes.
Firstly, the ECCTA broadens the 'identification doctrine' – the principle which attributes the actions of individuals representing a company's 'directing mind and will' to the corporate itself. Historically, the identification doctrine has created difficulties for prosecuting corporates, particularly those with complicated business structures. The ECCTA has broadened this principle by extending liability to the actions of "senior managers", thereby expanding the range of individuals who can trigger corporate criminal responsibility[1].
The ECCTA also introduces a new offence of failing to prevent fraud. The offence mirrors other pre-existing 'FTP' offences and enables prosecutors to hold large commercial organisations criminally liable if an 'associated person' (e.g. an agent/employee) commits a relevant fraud offence to benefit the organisation. It is a defence for the organisation to have in place reasonable fraud prevention procedures. The offence came into force on 1 September 2025. In the run-up to this deadline, corporate entities have had an opportunity to grapple with the principles-based Government guidance on the procedures defence which was published at the end of 2024.
All signs are that the SFO is raring to use its new tools. Its business plan calls the introduction of the new offence a "landmark moment which will widen the reach and breadth of prosecutions" and Ephgrave has previously said that he is "very keen to prosecute" under the failure to prevent fraud provisions.
In circumstances where the SFO does appear to be living up to its word, we can perhaps expect the SFO to take a proactive stance here, not least because it will want to avoid the perception that its bold statements on this topic have been meaningless.
Development of other evidence gathering tools
Elsewhere, 'Part 2' of Jonathan Fisher's review is also underway, focusing on the challenges confronting law enforcement and prosecutors in holding individuals accountable for fraud in England and Wales. A key aim of the review is to enable early identification and disruption of fraud, and the work will include evaluation of incentives for whistleblowers. Fisher aims to submit his final report to the Home Secretary by the end of the year.
In an update published in July, Fisher noted a "growing interest" in the role of whistleblowing as a tool for early fraud detection – a view which aligns with the SFO's position. Ephgrave has previously been vocal about the benefits of incentivising whistleblowers as is commonplace in the US, and he appears to be continuing to drive a regime change in this area forward. In the context of Part 2 of the Fisher Review, the SFO has commented that it looks forward "to engaging with the Review Team to present our case for reform."
And in the distance is a busy trial schedule
Whilst we can expect to see further activity in relation to opening and pursuing new investigations, particularly now that the new failure to prevent fraud offence is in force, behind the scenes the SFO will be preparing for what is set to be a busy case load in 2026. The agency has 5 trials listed for next year, in particular, Ethical Forestry Limited; Raedex Consortium; Patisserie Valerie; London Mining and Petrofac.
Given the issues that have hindered historic SFO prosecutions, including most recently the landmark decision of the Supreme Court to quash the historic convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlos Palombo for dishonestly seeking to influence the LIBOR and EURIBOR benchmark rates[2], the outcome of these trials may be the ultimate litmus test for the agency's new era under Ephgrave.
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.
