- Court approves €1bn DPA in Airbus bribery case (SFO v Airbus SE)
- What was the background to the approval of the DPA?
- What conduct is covered and how did it come to light?
- What are the key terms of the DPA?
- Why was the DPA in the interests of justice?
- What sets this DPA apart from those agreed previously?
- What is the significance of the SFO's use of BA 2010, s 7?
- Case details
Corporate Crime analysis: Southwark Crown Court has approved a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) requiring the respondent aircraft manufacturer (Airbus SE) to pay a total financial sanction of €983,974,311 to the applicant Serious Fraud Office (SFO) after it was charged with five counts under section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) of failing to prevent persons associated with it from bribing third parties in order to secure the purchase of its aircraft. The court found that entering into the DPA would be in the interests of justice and its proposed terms were fair, reasonable and proportionate. Pam Shearing, solicitor and director at Fulcrum Chambers Ltd, Farheen Ishtiaq, solicitor, and Emily Lewis, solicitor, examine the judgment and the DPA.
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