The Serious Fraud Office Reports...

The Serious Fraud Office has just published its 2013/2014 Annual Report. Anyone reading it in the hope or expectation of gaining some insights into what the SFO does or what causes it concern may be a trifle disappointed: of the 72 pages of the report, I could find only 4 that contained anything of interest. In four paragraphs on page 1, David Green CB QC, the Director of the SFO since April 2012, sets out his mission: to take on the really difficult fraud cases, as envisaged by Lord Roskill in the Fraud Trials Committee Report in the 1980's, better cooperation with law enforcement partners in the UK and abroad, and to build up an intelligence capability. No one could argue with that. He states that high quality staff have been recruited and retained. On page 3 there are some statistics about the number of cases in progress (12 new investigations, and 5 trials, of which 3 were completed during the relevant period). On page 5 there is some analysis of the SFO's budget, which has been in the region of £35-£39m since 2009, but 'Blockbuster' funding for Libor and other cases brought it up to £51,379,000 last year. On page 27 there is mention of two reviews carried out into a 'data loss' incident which occurred a year ago: this involved sending, by mistake, material gathered during an investigation to a witness.

The remainder of the report, 68 pages, is devoted to accounts, governance statements, risk assessments, lists of salaries, pensions and bonuses, policies, and attempts generally to comply with what might be generously described as transparency requirements. The Director, as 'Accounting Officer', had to sign off on 4 audits and accounts.

In the old days the annual report was a more festive publication. It contained some accounts and statistics, but also a good deal of information about how the office works, case studies, photos and profiles. No doubt this is not the current way of doing things in any government department or agency, but it was more interesting. It might be said that you can go to the SFO's website (currently being reinvigorated) to read case studies, and find out about what people do, but the Annual Report was a convenient template for providing an annual review of progress.

So what are we to make of the SFO's current state, based on this Annual Report, and on the press reports about the office during the last year? It may be that the recently demoted Ken Clarke's review of the law enforcement response to City scandals...