The recent collapse of the Serious Fraud Office’s prosecution of three former Tesco PLC managers has led many commentators to denounce the deferred prosecution agreement regime as unfit for purpose. It is asserted that there is a legal incoherence when individuals are acquitted in their trials but identified as seemingly complicit in criminality in a DPA judgment and/or a statement of facts. To understand why this criticism is flawed, it is necessary to compare the different lenses through which a prosecutor and a judge examine the evidence in a DPA.
Read the full article in Law360, behind a paywall, here.
Tasha Benkhadra writes for the FT Adviser on the FCA’s whistleblowing campaign
June 23 2022
Andrew Smith and Joseph Hume write for PLC Magazine on the relationship between statutory and common law fraud offences
June 10 2022
Andrew Smith writes for The Law Society Gazette on acting for Russian clients during the Ukraine war
May 30 2022