- Considering issues of privilege in internal and regulatory investigations (Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd and another)
- What are the most interesting aspects of this judgment from a corporate crime perspective?
- Following this decision, what do you consider are the limits which will be placed on litigation privilege attaching to documents created during a criminal investigation (before a prosecution has been commenced) and why? How does this sit with the decision in HSE v Jukes?
- How will this case help defence lawyers respond to regulator requests for the production of documents created during an internal investigation, such as witness interview notes and internal investigation reports and are there significant grey areas which remain? If so, what considerations arise in respect of them?
- What do you think the ramifications of this case might be in the context of voluntary self-disclosure with a view to avoiding prosecution?
- How might the interpretation and application of this judgment change the way practitioners advise their clients, specifically in the context of international investigations?
Corporate Crime analysis: How does the decision place limitations on litigation privilege? Joanna Dimmock, partner at White & Case LLP, examines the judgment from a corporate crime perspective while exploring how the judgment could help and hinder defence lawyers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial