Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1503595

	registered interest
	date	02/09/2022
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how much her Department spent on the (a) Calvert-Smith review and (b) Altman review of the Serious Fraud Office.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Andy Slaughter
	uin	45319
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/09/2022 answer text <p>The costs of Sir David Calvert-Smith’s independent review into the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO) handling of the Unaoil case (<em>R. v Akle &amp; Anor</em>), which was commissioned by the Attorney General, are still being finalised. The costs to date to the Attorney General’s Office are £84,571.90. There are some costs outstanding, but it is anticipated these will not increase the overall cost of the review significantly. The total costs will be recovered from the SFO.</p><p> </p><p>The cost of Brian Altman QC’s independent review of the collapse of <em>R v. Woods &amp; Marshall</em>, which was commissioned by the Director of the SFO, was £359,442.37. This was paid for by the SFO.</p><p> </p><p>Both reviews presented valuable recommendations and the implementation of these remain a priority for the Law Officers and the Director of the SFO.</p> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 08/09/2022 12:00:36 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1349628

	registered interest
	date	22/07/2021
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what the Serious Fraud Office’s conviction rate was for (a) individuals and (b) corporations in 2020-21.
	tabling member constituency	Thirsk and Malton
	tabling member printed	Kevin Hollinrake
	uin	38329
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/09/2021 answer text <p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO), by its specialist nature, takes on a relatively small number of large, complex economic crime cases which can take several years to investigate. This means that small changes in case numbers can lead to significant fluctuations in in the SFO’s conviction rate.</p><p> </p><p>Against this context, in 2020-21 the SFO’s conviction rate for individuals was 67 percent, which included three convictions in the $1.7bn Unaoil bribery case and one guilty plea in the Petrofac bribery case. No corporations were brought to trial in 2020-21. The SFO also secured two Deferred Prosecution Agreements against corporates in 2020-21, returning £47.4m in fines and penalties to the UK taxpayer and compelling these organisations to reform.</p> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 10/09/2021 11:02:47 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
	tabling member	4474 label Biography information for Kevin Hollinrake

1349629

	registered interest
	date	22/07/2021
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Serious Fraud Office
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the decision making process within the Serious Fraud Office on whether to open, continue or close a criminal investigation into a corporate entity.
	tabling member constituency	Thirsk and Malton
	tabling member printed	Kevin Hollinrake
	uin	38330
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/09/2021 answer text <p>The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has robust assurance processes in place to ensure effective decision-making on whether to open, continue, or close a criminal investigation into a corporate entity. This includes the SFO’s Case Evaluation Board (CEB) and Case Review Panels (CRPs), both of which are chaired by the SFO General Counsel.</p><p> </p><p>The CEB reviews intelligence submissions against the Director’s Statement of Principle and assesses strategic and tactical risks, costs, and resource implications to make an informed recommendation to the Director on whether to initiate or decline an investigation. CRPs seek to scrutinise all cases at least twice a year to ensure that sound judgement and appropriate investigative and legal expertise are being used in cases, and that cases are progressing appropriately and comply with all relevant legal and operational guidance.</p><p> </p><p>While the SFO exercises independence in its individual casework decisions, I am regularly updated by the Director and her senior leadership team on the SFO’s casework.</p> answering member constituency Northampton North answering member printed Michael Ellis question first answered 10/09/2021 11:06:29 answering member 4116 label Biography information for Sir Michael Ellis
	tabling member	4474 label Biography information for Kevin Hollinrake