While in London recently to chair the World Bribery & Corruption Compliance Forum (see here, here and here for previous posts), I was pleased to accept the invitation of the U.K. Serious Fraud Office to visit its offices and meet top-level SFO personnel to discuss Bribery Act and other anti-corruption issues and topics. As part of the invitation, Richard Alderman (here), the Director of the SFO, invited me to submit questions to him on any topic of my choosing.
I submitted approximately thirty detailed questions covering a broad range of topics, including the role and policies of the SFO, the Bribery Act, the BAE and Innospec cases, Bribery Inc., and other questions of general interest. Except for certain questions regarding the BAE case, which is still pending in the U.K. courts, Mr. Alderman provided answers to every question, including on topics I have been critical of the SFO in the past.
In his answers, Mr. Alderman, among other things:
(i) compares and contrasts the SFO’s role with the DOJ’s role in enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including the more active and independent role U.K. courts have in reviewing SFO charging decisions;
(ii) talks about voluntary disclosure, and the role of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements;
(iii) discusses reputational harm, debarment, and reparations; and
(iv) talks specifically about the Bribery Act which is to be implemented in April 2011.
I thank Mr. Alderman and other SFO personnel for taking a keen interest in my work and commend the “active engagement” approach the SFO has taken in going about its work.
My complete “conversation” with Mr. Alderman can be downloaded here.