The Guralp case has given the Serious Fraud Office a welcome boost, writes Jonathan Fisher KC, but lessons can still be learned
- The ruling in Guralp allows the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to take enforcement action after a key term of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) had been breached by a defendant company.
- It is essential that terms of a DPA must be simply stated. And the SFO would be well advised to improve its arrangements for diarising important dates and allowing a margin around them.
- The SFO may also reflect on whether a DPA ought to have been made in a case where a company is unable to pay a fine and legal costs.
Last month’s High Court ruling in Guralp Systems Ltd v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2026] EWHC 37 (Admin) gives a much-needed boost to the fortunes of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), recently battered by the loss of R v Hayes; R v Palombo [2025] UKSC 29 in the Supreme Court. Most significantly, it clears the path
