Deferred Prosecution Agreements—five years on, what have we learned? By Oliver Cooke & Dan Hyde
- DPAs subject to rigorous scrutiny by the courts.
- Balance meaningful punishment with fairness for innocent parties.
- Can now be used for offences under the Financial Crime Act as well as the Bribery Act.
Since their introduction in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (CCA 2013), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has concluded four Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), seemingly all in different circumstances (the details of one remaining confidential). Opinion is divided: some commentators believe they provide an effective means of compelling businesses to behave ethically, lawfully and transparently; others (including the Executive Director of Transparency International UK) feel they represent ‘a soft option for companies that should be prosecuted for serious crimes,’ (Robert Barrington, executive director, Transparency International UK).
While it is still undeniably early days for DPAs, informative trends do begin to emerge from the DPAs concluded with Standard Bank, the company known as ‘XYZ’, and Rolls-Royce.
Fairness
Fairness is the overriding principle at the core of all DPAs. In particular, the judiciary are keen
