- Latest deferred prosecution agreement approved (Serious Fraud Office v Guralp Systems Ltd)
- What was the background to the approval of the DPA?
- What conduct was unearthed and how?
- What are the terms of the DPA?
- Why was the DPA in the interests of justice?
- What sets this DPA apart from those agreed previously?
- What other learning points can corporate crime practitioners take away from this?
- Case details
Corporate Crime analysis: Southwark Crown Court has approved a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) requiring the respondent company, which had been charged with conspiracy to make corrupt payments and failing to prevent bribery by employees, to disgorge within five years its profit attributable to the corruption. The court found the DPA was likely to be in the interests of justice and its proposed terms were fair, reasonable and proportionate. Quinton Newcomb, barrister and director, and Blake Woodfield, solicitor, at Fulcrum Chambers Ltd, examine the judgment and the DPA, which has some unusual features.
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