Category Archives: UK Liability and Enforcement

The Trust Paradox: How Aggressive Whistleblower Enforcement Risks Undermining Compliance Culture

by Sharon Oded

Photo of the author

Sharon Oded (photo courtesy of the author)

In the evolving landscape of corporate regulation, whistleblower frameworks have emerged as indispensable instruments for surfacing misconduct that might otherwise remain obscured. From financial fraud to sanctions violations, whistleblower disclosures have catalyzed some of the most significant enforcement actions of the past decade. Yet, as enforcement agencies increasingly adopt aggressive, incentive-driven approaches, a critical inflection point has been reached: Are we inadvertently undermining the very cultures of integrity we seek to cultivate?

Continue reading →

A Reflection on the OECD’s Report (Part II): Governments’ Assessments of Corporate Anti-Corruption Compliance

by Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco (photos courtesy of authors)

Governments have a responsibility to evaluate corporate compliance programs and an opportunity to design strong regulatory frameworks. To identify reforms and encourage implementation, they must first understand the state of compliance. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Governments’ Assessments of Corporate Anti-Corruption Compliance[1] provides a detailed look at how governments are approaching the assessment of corporate anti-corruption compliance programs. The report explains that clear, consistent standards for assessing these programs would improve both efficiency and credibility—but few governments have adopted such standards. This blog post explores governments’ roles in 1) guiding companies on compliance criteria, 2) enhancing oversight, and 3) the value of information sharing.

Continue reading →

UK Serious Fraud Office Issues New Self-Reporting and Corporate Cooperation Guidance

by Lloyd Firth and Frederick Saugman

Left to right: Lloyd Firth and Frederick Saugman (photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP)

On 24 April 2025, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) issued new guidance to encourage companies to self-report suspected corporate wrongdoing. The guidance states that self-reporting, combined with full cooperation with the SFO’s investigation will, absent exceptional circumstances, lead to the SFO inviting the company to commence Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) negotiations.[1] While the guidance is a welcome recognition that companies crave certainty of outcome in their dealings with the SFO and a sign of the agency’s increased pragmatism, in practice it is unlikely to move the needle for companies on notice of suspected wrongdoing facing the critical strategic decision of whether and when to self-report.

Continue reading →

Staffing Up: Antitrust Regulators Around the World Step up Digital Platform and Technology Enforcement

by Aymeric De Moncuit, Rachel J. Lamorte, Daniel Vowden, Stephen V. Groh, Ora Nwabueze, and Sarah Wilks

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Aymeric De Moncuit, Rachel J. Lamorte and Daniel Vowden. Bottom left to right: Stephen V. Groh, Ora Nwabueze and Sarah Wilks. (Photos courtesy of Mayer Brown)

At a Glance

In February, the Japan Fair Trade Commission announced that it will hire additional staff to enforce the country’s new Act on Promotion of Competition for Specified Smartphone Software. The Act “aim[s] to foster innovation and expand options for consumers through ensuring a fair and competitive environment in the digital field,” and is a recent example of worldwide competition enforcers’ focus on digital platforms and technology. We consider how enforcers across the world have staffed up to enforce similar legislation.

Continue reading →

The New ‘Failure to Prevent Fraud’ Corporate Offence — UK Government Publishes Guidance

by Karolos Seeger, Aisling Cowell, Andrew H. Lee, and Sophie Michalski

Photo of the authors

Left to Right: Karolos Seeger, Aisling Cowell, Andrew H. Lee, and Sophie Michalski (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On 6 November 2024, the Home Office finally published government guidance on the corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud (the “FTPF Offence”), which was introduced in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 enacted last October. The new offence will now come into force on 1 September 2025, giving companies a longer period to prepare than had been expected. 

Continue reading →

ICO Dawn Raids: How to respond and what you can do to prepare – An FAQ

by Robert Maddox and Aisling Cowell

Left to Right: Robert Maddox and Aisling Cowell (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

In the UK, unannounced inspections of businesses’ premises, or “dawn raids”, are most often associated with authorities such as the Serious Fraud Office, National Crime Agency, Competition and Markets Authority and Metropolitan Police. However, data controllers and processers should be aware that the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) can also carry out dawn raids as part of investigations into compliance with data protection laws.

Such inspections can be stressful and complex for businesses to respond to, with a risk of criminal liability for failing to cooperate properly.

Here, we examine the ICO’s powers to conduct dawn raids, how those powers have been exercised in the past, and outline the steps which businesses should consider taking to prepare effectively for – and appropriately respond to – dawn raids.

Continue reading →

Balancing Victim Compensation and Efficiency in Non-Trial Resolutions: A Comparative Perspective from the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators

by Stéphane Bonifassi, Lincoln Caylor, Grégoire Mangeat, Léon Moubayed, Jonathan Sack, Andrew Stafford K.C., Wolfgang Spoerr, and Thomas Weibel

Photos of authors.

Top left to right: Stéphane Bonifassi, Lincoln Caylor, Grégoire Mangeat, Léon Moubayed. Bottom left to right: Jonathan Sack, Andrew Stafford K.C., Wolfgang Spoerr, and Thomas Weibel. (Photos courtesy of authors)

Introduction

Negotiated settlements for financial crimes offer a practical approach to resolving cases without lengthy trials. However, they pose a complex dilemma: how to balance efficiency with the need for victims to have a meaningful role in the proceeding and achieve adequate victim compensation. Across various jurisdictions, the approaches to non-trial resolutions reflect differing priorities, with some countries leaning towards expediency and others emphasizing victim rights. This is why the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators published a working paper on the topic. This piece explores the current state of how victims of financial crime are being compensated in non-trial resolutions across different legal jurisdictions. Furthermore, it identifies some of the challenges and trade-offs lawmakers face when trying to infuse an optimal amount of victim involvement into the settlement process, providing suggestions on how victims of financial crime can be better heard and compensated in settlement procedures.

Continue reading →

Former Aide to Madagascan President Sentenced for Soliciting Bribes Under UK Bribery Act

by Pamela Reddy, Robin Spedding, and Matthew Unsworth

Photos of the authors

Left to Right: Pamela Reddy, Robin Spedding, and Matthew Unsworth (photos courtesy of Latham & Watkins LLP)

Sentencing of Romy Andrianarisoa, the first ever foreign public official to be convicted under the UK Bribery Act of 2010, provides important takeaways.

On 10 May 2024, Romy Andrianarisoa was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment for soliciting bribes contrary to Section 2 of the Bribery Act 2010 (Bribery Act). Andrianarisoa, former Chief of Staff to President Andry Rajoelina of Madagascar, requested substantial cash payments in exchange for helping UK-headquartered Gemfields Group Ltd (Gemfields) secure mining rights in the country. Her associate, French national Philippe Tabuteau, was also handed a 27-month sentence for his role in the scheme.

Continue reading →

Cross-Border Implications of the FCA’s Consultation Paper on Publishing Information About the Opening and Progress of Investigations

by Michael A. Asaro, James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Ezra Zahabi, and Joe Hewton

photos of the authors

From left to right: Michael A. Asaro, James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Ezra Zahabi, and Joe Hewton. (Photos courtesy of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP).

Last month, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it is considering new procedures under which it would publicly identify firms that are under investigation as soon as the investigation has been opened.[1] The consultation period closes on April 30, 2024. (See our recent client alert here). The proposed new approach—which, if adopted, would be a dramatic break from historical practice—would result in public disclosure before any charges have been filed and before the FCA has determined whether the firm actually did anything wrong. In this article, we draw comparisons between the investigation disclosure regimes in the U.K. and the United States. We also provide commentary on the FCA’s proposals.

Continue reading →

Paying Criminal Whistleblowers: DOJ Announces A Program to Pay For Tips, and the SFO Is Considering Doing So Too

by Joshua A. Naftalis, Matt Getz, and Tracey Dovaston

From left to right: Joshua A. Naftalis, Matt Getz, and Tracey Dovaston. (Photos courtesy of Pallas Partners LLP).

In the past two weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) each made announcements about paying financial bounties to whistleblowers.  On March 7, 2024, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced a new DOJ whistleblower program that will compensate individual whistleblowers for reporting corporate or financial misconduct previously unknown to DOJ.  This announcement followed a February 13, 2024 speech by SFO Director Nick Ephgrave, who said that he supported the idea of paying whistleblowers.    

Continue reading →