Attorney general turns up heat on SFO with probe into Unaoil lapses
By 
Neil Hodge2022-02-11T14:39:00
The U.K. attorney general is carrying out a review into why—and how—the Serious Fraud Office managed to botch a bribery investigation into Unaoil that saw one of the oil and gas consultancy’s former executives have his conviction overturned.
Related articles
-
ArticleSFO accepts ‘sobering’ results of Unaoil, Serco case reviews
The U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office was criticized for its leadership, culture, and conduct in a report examining why the agency botched a key corruption case against Unaoil that has now seen three convictions overturned.
-
ArticleSFO dealt blow after second Unaoil conviction overturned
The U.K. Serious Fraud Office was dealt another blow after Paul Bond, a former sales manager at Dutch energy services company SBM Offshore, had his 42-month jail sentence overturned because the agency failed to disclose vital evidence in its Unaoil case.
-
ArticleSFO integrity questioned after Unaoil conviction overturned
The Serious Fraud Office will be investigated by the U.K. Attorney General’s Office after a court said the agency denied a convicted former oil and gas executive the right to a fair trial.
More from Regulatory Enforcement
-
ArticleFormer startup CEO gets 7 years in prison for $175M fraud against JPMorgan Chase
Charlie Javice, a former CEO who duped JPMorgan Chase into purchasing her start up company for $175 million, has been ordered to forfeit more than $22 million by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and to spend 7 years in jail.
-
ArticleGeorgia Tech to pay $875,000 for allegations brought by compliance officers
Georgia Tech Research Corp. (GTRC) has agreed to pay $875,000 to settle allegations first raised by two compliance officers that its cybersecurity protocols violated acceptable standards for defense contractors, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said.
-
ArticleTractor Supply Company hit with $1.35M fine for alleged California privacy violations
Tractor Supply Company has agreed to get into compliance with California’s consumer privacy law and to pay a $1.35 million fine—the largest yet by California—to settle allegations it violated the privacy rights of customers and job applicants.