Overseas corruption guidance: another step to deferred prosecution agreements?

In July, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) issued written guidance to the corporate sector, setting out its approach to overseas corruption, and, in particular, the treatment that companies which self-report can expect. [1] Is this but the latest instance of UK emulation of US enforcement policy in the area? Jeremy Summers and Rod Fletcher of Russell Jones & Walker reflect.

© September 2009. Rod Fletcher (+44 (0) 20 7657 1769, i.r.fletcher@rjw.co.uk) and Jeremy Summers (+44 (0) 20 7657 1786, j.summers@rjw.co.uk) are partners in the Business Crime and Regulation Investigations Department at Russell Jones & Walker. They acted for Balfour Beatty throughout the investigation that resulted in the settlement referred to in this article.

The genesis for the overseas corruption guidance was undoubtedly, at least in part, the ground-breaking settlement with Balfour Beatty concluded in October 2008. That saw the first ever use by the SFO of the civil recovery powers that it acquired in April 2008 pursuant to section 74 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.