A Judicial Take On SFO Investigative Powers

The High Court of Justice of England and Wales ("The High Court") recently provided a rare insight into the difficulties that companies and individuals may face when challenging the basis of a Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") investigation. Unaoil Group ("Unaoil"), a Monaco based company providing industrial solutions to the energy sector in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa, challenged the basis on which the SFO conducted its investigation against the company. The High Court rejected the judicial review claim brought by Unaoil.1 This is the second judicial review decision that the SFO has won in twelve months and demonstrates the increasing confidence of the prosecuting authorities following the £497.25m Rolls Royce deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). On 28 April 2017, the SFO announced an investigation into the activities of UK subsidiaries of the US engineering company KBR Inc. which related to its ongoing investigation of Unaoil. This may indicate that the SFO are investigating even further into Unaoil and its business affiliates which include big names such as Rolls Royce and SBM Offshore, an oil services company.

Background

On 23 March 2016, the SFO requested assistance from the authorities in Monaco ("Monegasque authorities") in relation to an ongoing investigation against Unaoil as well as certain individuals who controlled the company. The letter of request ("LOR") was based on the suspicion that Unaoil and certain controlling members of the company had committed offences including corruption, conspiracy to corrupt, conspiracy to corrupt transactions outside the UK, and offences of bribery. On 29 March 2016, the Monegasque authorities raided Unaoil's offices as well as residences of certain controlling members to gather evidence requested by the SFO. Unaoil, together with the individuals suspected2 (the "Claimants"), subsequently claimed a judicial review of the LOR claiming that the SFO failed to disclose key information and the investigation was a fishing expedition and therefore constituted improper exercise of the SFO's statutory powers to investigate.

The High Court rejected the claim and added that the SFO had acted in line with an international agreement, the Crime (International Cooperation) Act (CICA) 2003, that gives UK authorities the right to request assistance from foreign counterparts in order to investigate an offence that has or is suspected of having been, committed. In particular, the Claimants requested...