The Serious Fraud Office is to appeal against the devastating court ruling
that it acted unlawfully by dropping its investigation into BAE Systems.
Before taking action, lawyers will wait to hear what order the judges now make
at a hearing on April 24: one option is that they will quash the original
decision to halt the investigation. But a senior SFO source said privately:
“Of course we will appeal – wouldn’t you?”
Lord Goldsmith, QC, who was the Attorney-General at the time, has urged an
appeal and Sir Nicholas Lyell, QC, a former (Conservative) Attorney-General,
has said he believes that an appeal is likely.
The decision on whether to challenge the ruling falls to the SFO’s new
director, Richard Alderman, who takes up his post on Monday succeeding
Robert Wardle, the man who oversaw the BAE Systems investigation and made
the decision to stop it after pressure from the Government and threats from
Saudi Arabia.
In an interview with The Times, Mr Alderman stuck to the official line that he
was not yet in post and was therefore not party to discussions on any
appeal, nor had he any knowledge of the timing involved.
“My understanding is that the judgment is being considered. There are lots of
issues to be considered: the role of the SFO in dealing with these cases;
about the Attorney-General, Government, lots of things,” he said.
But the case, in which Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that
the dropping of the BAE investigation was unlawful and attacked ministers
and the SFO for failing to stand up to a threat of blackmail from the Saudi
authorities, falls right into Mr Alderman’s lap. In that sense, the timing
of the start of his four-year term of office could not be worse. But he has
not ducked interviews and is trying to put a brave face on the embattled
position that the SFO finds itself in.
“It is one of the challenges I would face but there are lots of things I want
to look at in terms of the SFO and how we bring cases to court as quickly as
possible,” he said.
Meanwhile, the other investigations into corruption involving BAE Systems were
continuing, he said, in Tanzania, South African, Romania and the Czech
Republic.
“These investigations are carrying on. I can’t talk about timing but I will be
briefed on that. But they are continuing.”
Tackling corruption allegations remained a high priority for the SFO, he
insisted. He said that it had a current total of 49 cases generally of which
16, or one third, involved corruption allegations.
He also pointed to the SFO’s strong record (in recent years) in securing
convictions and denied that the BAE Systems case had damaged its standing.
“Yes – it’s a very big issue. But there are lots of others as well. That’s
[damage to reputation] not what people are talking to me about.”
Mr Alderman, 55, is a barrister who comes from being director of national
teams and special civil investigations in Revenue & Customs, with
responsibility for 3,000 staff carrying out specialised tax investigations.
His career has been largely in the Government Legal Service with previous jobs
including being invited in 2002 to set up the Assets Recovery Agency (since
taken over) and becoming its first legal director. Before that he was
director of the Revenue’s Special Compliance Office in 2003-05, having
responsibility for all its criminal investigations.
He is keen to talk about his plans to raise awareness of the work the SFO
does. In the past year the SFO prosecuted in seven trials in which seventeen
defendants were convicted and eight acquitted.
“That is a conviction rate of 68 per cent which is absolutely spot-on in terms
of a long-term average. So seven out of ten fraudsters prosecuted by the SFO
are convicted.”
The staff, he said, were “dedicated, hard-working and very proud of their
record” and would like to see more public recognition of the SFO’s recent
successes. These represented a turn-around from the 1990s when a string of
costly big trials failed to result in convictions and led to its being
dubbed the “Serious Farce Office”.
Mr Alderman’s agenda is a mix of tougher action on fraudsters and a public
education exercise to alert people to the dangers of fraud and to “help them
to protect themselves” so that they do not fall victim.
He wants to cut the delays in getting cases to trial – from investigation to
first appearance in court can be 39 weeks, which he says is too long. He is
keen to look at lessons from the United States, where fraud cases come to
trial with much less delay.
“I want to cut that time down as much as we possibly can and get cases into
court quickly,” he said. “Obviously any delays are very serious,
particularly for the victims.”
Secondly, he plans to do more to seize fraudsters’ assets. The SFO has £200
million of assets held under restraint from pending cases but Mr Alderman
wants to see that figure soar.
The SFO now has the power to seize assets resulting from criminal conduct –
not only after a case has been to court but also when prosecutions are
dropped, the person dies or the property is passed to someone else.
Thirdly, he wants a campaign to educate the public into being able to
recognise frauds and fraudsters so “they are much more aware of the need to
put down the phone or to tear up a letter. It’s even better to prevent fraud
than it is to prosecute it. If we can help people to protect themselves and
their finances by not being duped I will be absolutely thrilled.”
He declined to accuse the public of being naive but added: “When I hear of
some of the cases, some of the people succumbing to these offences, I do
wonder why. But fraudsters are very persuasive.”
Shortly to land in his in-tray are the findings of an external review of the
procedures of the SFO, which he hopes will point to lessons to be learnt
from other jurisdictions, such those in the US. But he is not in favour of
“following them slavishly” or moving to American-style plea bargains and
says that he supports the recent proposals for more modest plea
negotiations, outlined by the Attorney-General.
Like other holders of his office he also favours the use of nonjury trials for
a small handful of complex fraud cases because of the burden they impose on
jurors.
He applied for the job, he said, because he had always been interested in the
“key role” of the SFO in “protecting society from fraudsters, pursuing them,
prosecuting them, trying to see things from the victims’ point of view and
getting justice for the victims and compensation for them”.
Work in progress
Top tasks for Mr Alderman
— What to do about BAE ruling
— Campaign to raise public awareness about fraud
— Push to shorten delays in the investigation of cases
— Drive to boost the use of powers to seize fraudsters’ assets
— Imminent review of findings on the SFO – how it does its work
Recent successes at the Serious Fraud Office
— Michael Bright, Philip Condon and Dennis Lomas found guilty of
conspiracy to defraud over running of Independent Insurance, of which they
were directors: led to loss of hundreds of jobs and £366 million paid out in
compensation
— Carlton Cushnie, former chairman and chief executive of Versailles
Group, pays more than £10 million in confiscation, to go to fraud victims,
in one of the biggest criminal confiscation orders – November 2006
— Gerald Smith pleaded guilty to misappropriating more than £34 million
belonging to Izodia and to false accounting – April 2006
Another thing,what about the accountants,who trooped in to the FSA in late2007 and early2008 to get their collective get out of jail cards,will they be scrutinised as to their role in SIVsand CDOs?How about feeling a few of these oiks collars!
Maria dos Santos, London, England
Gun, Foot, Bang!
This is exactly what will happen if the investigation is reopened and the Saudi's pull out of the multi billion pound deal, which will probably in turn put many skilled British workers out of a job.
Still, so long as we are seen to be doing the right thing no matter what the cost, thats the imortant thing (as our competitors laugh their socks off!).
Pete, St Albans, England
the words something and into the wind spring readily to mind
peter codner, devizes, england