SFO accepts ‘sobering’ results of Unaoil, Serco case reviews
By 
Neil Hodge2022-07-22T18:08:00
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.
Related articles
-
News BriefSFO admits staffing challenges in annual report
Recruitment and retention are among the biggest issues facing the U.K. Serious Fraud Office as the agency gets set for a new director to take the reins.
-
PremiumWhat should be priorities for incoming SFO director?
High staff turnover, low morale, and unattractive rates of pay are among the areas legal experts pointed to when discussing the potential agenda of Nick Ephgrave upon taking over as head of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office.
-
PremiumSFO’s Balli Steel win latest to leverage international cooperation
The Serious Fraud Office secured the convictions of two executives at failed British steel trading business Balli Steel on six counts of fraud. Legal experts examine whether “record-breaking” international cooperation in the case served as a crutch for the U.K. regulator.
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.