The United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced an enforcement action against Ultra Electronics Holdings Ltd (a British manufacturer of electronic systems for the international defence and aerospace market) in connection with bribery schemes in Oman and Algeria.
As stated in the SFO release, the company “acknowledged accountability for failure to prevent bribery” and a judge “approved a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) requiring [the company] to pay the penalty, plus £4.8 million in SFO investigation costs. In addition to the financial penalty and costs, the DPA requires the company to meet strict conditions and demonstrate genuine and sustained reform under the scrutiny of the court.”
According to the release:
“The DPA relates to failure to prevent bribery in connection with three public sector contracts sought through the use of agents. These included a contract worth up to £200 million awarded by the Omani Ministry of Transport and Communications.
There were two further contracts sought in Algeria. One for information technology and e-commerce solutions at Houari Boumediene Airport in Algiers, and a second for encryption technology for the Algerian Ministry of Post and Telecommunications. The Algerian contracts – ultimately not secured by the company – were expected to generate a profit of £1.4 million.”
In the release, Graham McHulty (Director of the SFO) stated:
“Public services and critical national infrastructure depend on business being carried out honestly and lawfully. Bribery undermines that trust and corrodes the systems on which society relies. [This] outcome underlines the Serious Fraud Office’s determination to investigate and hold companies to account where those standards are breached.”
According to the SFO release:
“An investigation was opened into the company in 2018 after it reported suspected offences of corruption relating to conduct in Algeria. In 2024, this investigation was extended to all jurisdictions in which the company operated. The SFO previously withdrew from negotiations with Ultra Electronics when it concluded the conditions for a meaningful agreement were not in place. It was only following significant changes to the company’s ownership, structure and leadership that negotiations resumed. The SFO satisfied itself that Ultra Electronics’ new leadership had both the willingness and the capacity to engage in good faith before talks resumed.”
