Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
agreements used in cases concerning fraud, bribery and other economic crime, made
between prosecutors and corporate organizations. Essentially, where a corporate body
is suspected of committing a criminal offence under the Bribery Act, the prosecutor
may choose to offer a DPA instead of prosecution. If the DPA is fulfilled according
to its terms, then the charges will be dropped at the end of the specified period of
the DPA, but should compliance with the DPA not be achieved, then this may result
in prosecution. DPAs are far from an easy option, however, with the agreement itself
lasting for a set period which could potentially be a number of years. Furthermore, in
addition to a financial penalty, required to be 'broadly comparable to the fine that a
court would have imposed
on conviction for the alleged offence following a guilty
plea' (Crime and Courts Act 2013, Schedule 17, paragraph 5(4)), conditions within a
DPA may include disgorgement of profits or benefits within a specified time, repara-
tion to victims, the creation of a thorough compliance programme and/or continued
ongoing monitoring.
While the offering of DPAs is to be aligned with the Bribery Act, which is of course
aUKAct,inScotlandthereisnointentiontomakeprovisionforDPAs.Shortly
before the Crime and Courts Act 2013 received Royal Assent, a Scottish Government
spokespersonsaid:'WhileweareawareoftheUKGovernment'splans,wedonothave
anyimmediateplansto legislatefor deferredprosecution agreementsfor Scotland.We
will continue to monitor developments in England and Wales.'
…
22.5.3 Self-reporting initiative
Given the wide scope of the Bribery Act, an initiative was announced in 2011 by the
Scottish Crown Office, through the Serious and Organised Crime Division (SOCD),
whereby businesses would self-report to the relevant authority acts of corruption or
bribery in return for more lenient treatment. This initiative was made in conjunction
with the Serious Fraud Office, the enforcement body for England, Wales and North-
ern Ireland. From July 2011 to (the extended deadline of) 30 June 2013 the Crown
were willing to accept self-reports on behalf of businesses who disclosed conduct that
would amount to a breach of anti-bribery legislation. The first instance of a company
making use of the self-reporting regime in Scotland saw an Aberdeen-based oil and
gas firm, Abbot Group, broker a settlement. he firm approached Scottish authorities
in November 2012 after discovering that an overseas subsidiary had made bribes to
win a contract, resulting in a benefit to the firm of the sum of £5.6 million. Accord-
ingly a civil penalty of £5.6 million was agreed, with the firm being able to use the
self-reporting initiative because they could satisfy the prosecutors that a thorough
investigation had been undertaken and that sufficient processes had been put in place
to ensure there would not be a re-occurrence of such an event.
On the 1 July 2013 the Crown Office reissued its guidance on the self-reporting
programme which has recently been further extended to 30 June 2015.
Any decision to self-report should be taken with the approval of the board of
the relevant organization, in conjunction with legal advisers, and after a thorough
investigation has been carried out. Additionally, the business which is reporting
must agree to disclose all details of the relevant conduct. It is a serious matter for any
business to self-report and the Head of SOCD has warned '[t]his initiative is not a
