As mentioned in our 2013 semi-annual update on ODA and corporate NPAs, the initiative for DPAs in the UK is the responsibility of the designated law enforcement authorities (including the FSO), which may invite a legal entity, partnership or association without legal capacity against which proceedings are envisaged to initiate ODA negotiations. Data protection authorities are not available in connection with the prosecution of individuals. Contrary to many reports, this development does not constitute the first application by the United Kingdom of the offence referred to in Article 7. This was in the form of the announcement made by the Scottish Crown office on 25 September. September 2015 via a £212,800 civil recovery order against Brand-Rex Limited, a developer of cabling solutions for network infrastructure and industrial applications, in connection with the failure of corruption prevention by an independent installer of Brand Rex products. This case concerned the abuse of an incentive scheme operated by Brand-Rex by improperly providing tickets to a customer whose staff used them to travel abroad. The Crown Office dealt with the Brand Rex case as part of its “self-declaration initiative”, which allows for civil recovery rather than a criminal outcome, but is only valid in Scotland. Also, out of 2. In December 2015, it was announced that construction company Sweett Group had admitted an Article 7 violation as part of an ongoing Serious Fraud Office investigation into two related contracts in the Middle East and is awaiting prosecution. The SFO also issued a press release on 2 December 2015, confirming this and, in particular, confirming that the case could be brought before a court (which apparently confirms sotto voce that this would be dealt with by a DPA). As a result of the CCA, Standard Bank will have to pay $25.2 million in financial contracts and pay an additional $7 million in compensation to the Tanzanian government. The Bank also agreed to pay the FSO`s reasonable cost of £330,000 as part of the DPA investigation and subsequent resolution. ICBC Standard Bank PLC will not be sued after fulfilling the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement, the UK`s Serious Fraud Office said on Friday.

Leveson also highlighted the specific steps Standard Bank has taken to secure cooperative loans in the eyes of the court. “The bank has fully cooperated with the FSO from the earliest possible date, including providing a summary of respondents` initial reports that facilitated interviews with current employees, provided prompt and comprehensive responses to requests for information and materials, and provided access to its document review platform,” he said. “This historic ODA will serve as a model for future agreements. Lord Justice Leveson`s decision provides very useful advice to those who advise companies. It also agrees with the FSO`s assertion that the Data Protection Authority in this case is fair, proportionate and proportionate in the interests of fairness and its conditions. I congratulate Standard Bank for its openness to the FSO and its quick and early engagement with us. The DPA Code of Conduct states that “the more serious the crime, the more likely it is that prosecutions in the public interest will be necessary” and that “[a] prosecutions generally take place unless there are public interest factors against prosecutions that clearly outweigh those who speak in favour of prosecution.” So why did SFO choose to offer Standard Bank an APD instead of pursuing it? Two factors were important: the nature of the alleged crime and Standard Bank`s cooperative approach to detecting misconduct. The outcome of the investigation was sufficient to enable the FSO to conclude that there was a reasonable suspicion that Standard Bank had not prevented corruption by Stanbic, one of its partners, and that further investigation would likely reveal other admissible evidence that would lead to a realistic prospect of a conviction under Section 7 of the Corruption Act. The FSO reached an agreement with Standard Bank to defer the lawsuits in exchange for Standard Bank in order to compensate the Tanzanian government in the amount of $6 million (corresponding to the 1% commission paid to EGMA), deduct the profits of $8.4 million related to the transaction (the remaining fees of 1.4%) and pay a fine of $16.8 million. as well as the revision of its anti-corruption policy and the payment of the FSO`s costs. The statement of facts is included in clause 2 of standard bank DPA and clause 3 generally provides that this statement of facts is considered an admission in any lawsuit in the event of termination of Standard Bank DPA. ICBC Standard Bank, until recently the investment banking unit of South Africa`s Standard Bank, is preparing to pay up to $40 million (£26.59 million) in fines to the UK in the first deferred prosecution operation secured by the Serious Fraud Office.

A deferred prosecution agreement allows a prosecutor to stay a prosecution for a certain period of time as long as the organization completes the measures set out in the agreement under the supervision of a judge. The U.S. Department of Justice has a similar practice. The public interest review requires the prosecutor to ensure that the public interest is properly served by not prosecuting, but instead entering into a DPA. Lord Justice Brian Leveson`s decision at Southwark Crown Court “confirms the FSO`s assertion that the DPA in this case was fair, reasonable and proportionate in the interests of justice and its conditions,” he said. Standard Bank (a regulated bank in the UK) and its Tanzanian sister company, Stanbic Bank Tanzania, have applied for a joint mandate from the Tanzanian government to act as the lead manager for the issuance of a government bond. The proposed royalty for the mandate was 2.4% of proceeds, although two of Stanbic`s senior executives (initially unbeknownst to Standard Bank) agreed that 1% of this commission would be paid to a local Tanzanian partner company called EGMA, whose chairman and main shareholder was the commissioner of the Tanzania Revenue Authority and thus a member of the Tanzanian government. SUBSEQUENTLY, EGMA did not provide services related to the company, which led to the inevitable conclusion that Stanbic officials intended that the 1% commission would induce the egma chairman (and possibly other members of the government) to show their favor with Stanbic and Standard Bank`s proposal. The similarity of the concerns of all the partners involved created a perfect environment for the rapid and pragmatic resolution of problems, the testing of new ideas and methods of investigation, and the establishment of a closer relationship with other law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

A series of firsts and positive results allowed the case to be tried in 2019. But it was only during the hearings, when the global Covid-19 pandemic hit, that the process faced many postponements in early 2020. Meanwhile, in September 2019, Tanzanian legislation was amended to allow for plea bargaining agreements. The bank`s former sister company, Stanbic Bank Tanzania Ltd., made a $6 million payment to a local partner in Tanzania in March 2013, the SFO said. The agency said the payment was intended to influence members of the Tanzanian government to help banks sign a contract to raise $600 million in public debt for the country. The two banks shared $8.4 million in transaction fees generated by the government bond deal, the SFO said. The past few weeks have certainly proved fruitful for the SFO, which completed its first DPA with Standard Bank on November 30, just three days before it also filed its first charges against a company – in this case, the Sweett Group – for violating Article 7 of the Corruption Law. In a statement, sFO director David Green said the ODA was an important step that would serve as a model for future agreements.