http://www.chattykathy.us/
Bark $ Co is famous for its experience and competency in handling various complicated cases. The firm has participated in various high profile prosecutions in the near past and in the process, our legal team has worked exceptionally well with government institutions, individuals and both private and public corporations. The firm is one of the top rated legal firms for their high quality level of representation in both UK and foreign jurisdictions.The major areas of jurisdiction include commercial fraud such as tax evasion, mortgage fraud, money laundering, pension fraud, corruption, Investment fraud, fraudulent trading, tax investigation, and telecoms fraud.Cases that our legal firm handles include investigations and prosecutions that are brought forth by any prosecution agency such as the Serious Fraud Office, Serious Organized Crime Agency, HM Revenue and Customs. The Financial Services Authority, Crown prosecution service and the Special compliance Office of the Inland Revenue.Bark & co solicitors news is that our legal firm has an established system of asset and cash recovery in both civil and criminal courts. We also have legal professionals that have the expertise to handle Restraint Orders successfully; hence our clients are able to minimize the financial cost of court cases that tend to be lengthy.Some of the recent examples of the high profile cases Bark & co solicitors legal advise have made a successful include a high profile case involving pension miss-selling case, a mobile phone fraud in which there is alleged fraud of the public to the tune of 250M just to mention a few.Bark & co solicitors commitment to providing the best legal services to its clients at a reasonable legal fee has earned them a name in the legal fraternity. Therefore, one should not hesitate to seek our legal services.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
Bark & Co Solicitors upheld Asil Nadir trial: Polly Peck tycoon fled UK ‘a broken man’
http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/bark-co-solicitors-upheld-asil-nadir-trial-polly-peck-tycoon-fled-uk-a-broken-man/
Mr Asil Nadir Begins Giving Evidence At The Bailey Mr Asil Nadir, the former chief executive of Polly Peck International today began to give evidence in the current trial at the Central Criminal Court (The Old Bailey). Bark & Co have been acting for Mr Nadir since 2010.
Polly Peck tycoon Asil Nadir was a “broken man” who had no hope of a fair trial when he left the UK in 1993, he has told the Old Bailey.
Mr Nadir, 71, is accused of stealing nearly £150m from his Polly Peck empire but denies all charges.
He denied he fled to northern Cyprus because he was guilty of fraud which he was being prosecuted for. He returned in August 2010 to face the charges.
Mr Nadir said the firm was put it into administration despite his protests.
‘Tremendous future’
Mr Nadir denied the company, Polly Peck International (PPI), had been insolvent.
Bark $ Co is famous for its experience and competency in handling various complicated cases. The firm has participated in various high profile prosecutions in the near past and in the process, our legal team has worked exceptionally well with government institutions, individuals and both private and public corporations. The firm is one of the top rated legal firms for their high quality level of representation in both UK and foreign jurisdictions.The major areas of jurisdiction include commercial fraud such as tax evasion, mortgage fraud, money laundering, pension fraud, corruption, Investment fraud, fraudulent trading, tax investigation, and telecoms fraud.Cases that our legal firm handles include investigations and prosecutions that are brought forth by any prosecution agency such as the Serious Fraud Office, Serious Organized Crime Agency, HM Revenue and Customs. The Financial Services Authority, Crown prosecution service and the Special compliance Office of the Inland Revenue.Bark & co solicitors news is that our legal firm has an established system of asset and cash recovery in both civil and criminal courts. We also have legal professionals that have the expertise to handle Restraint Orders successfully; hence our clients are able to minimize the financial cost of court cases that tend to be lengthy.Some of the recent examples of the high profile cases Bark & co solicitors legal advise have made a successful include a high profile case involving pension miss-selling case, a mobile phone fraud in which there is alleged fraud of the public to the tune of 250M just to mention a few.Bark & co solicitors commitment to providing the best legal services to its clients at a reasonable legal fee has earned them a name in the legal fraternity. Therefore, one should not hesitate to seek our legal services.
Mr Asil Nadir Begins Giving Evidence At The Bailey Mr Asil Nadir, the former chief executive of Polly Peck International today began to give evidence in the current trial at the Central Criminal Court (The Old Bailey). Bark & Co have been acting for Mr Nadir since 2010.
Polly Peck tycoon Asil Nadir was a “broken man” who had no hope of a fair trial when he left the UK in 1993, he has told the Old Bailey.
Mr Nadir, 71, is accused of stealing nearly £150m from his Polly Peck empire but denies all charges.
He denied he fled to northern Cyprus because he was guilty of fraud which he was being prosecuted for. He returned in August 2010 to face the charges.
Mr Nadir said the firm was put it into administration despite his protests.
‘Tremendous future’
Mr Nadir denied the company, Polly Peck International (PPI), had been insolvent.
Bark $ Co is famous for its experience and competency in handling various complicated cases. The firm has participated in various high profile prosecutions in the near past and in the process, our legal team has worked exceptionally well with government institutions, individuals and both private and public corporations. The firm is one of the top rated legal firms for their high quality level of representation in both UK and foreign jurisdictions.The major areas of jurisdiction include commercial fraud such as tax evasion, mortgage fraud, money laundering, pension fraud, corruption, Investment fraud, fraudulent trading, tax investigation, and telecoms fraud.Cases that our legal firm handles include investigations and prosecutions that are brought forth by any prosecution agency such as the Serious Fraud Office, Serious Organized Crime Agency, HM Revenue and Customs. The Financial Services Authority, Crown prosecution service and the Special compliance Office of the Inland Revenue.Bark & co solicitors news is that our legal firm has an established system of asset and cash recovery in both civil and criminal courts. We also have legal professionals that have the expertise to handle Restraint Orders successfully; hence our clients are able to minimize the financial cost of court cases that tend to be lengthy.Some of the recent examples of the high profile cases Bark & co solicitors legal advise have made a successful include a high profile case involving pension miss-selling case, a mobile phone fraud in which there is alleged fraud of the public to the tune of 250M just to mention a few.Bark & co solicitors commitment to providing the best legal services to its clients at a reasonable legal fee has earned them a name in the legal fraternity. Therefore, one should not hesitate to seek our legal services.
Friday, 29 June 2012
UBS 'rogue trader' granted bail by UK court | LiveJournal
http://aliyahbergh07.livejournal.com/2368.html
Former UBS trader Kweku Adoboli, who is accused of unauthorised deals that cost the Swiss bank $2.3 billion, was granted bail by a London court on Friday.
Adoboli, who denies charges of fraud and false accounting relating to the loss, was arrested last September. He was previously denied bail in February.
Friday's bail application was heard behind closed doors at Southwark Crown Court and the exact conditions were not disclosed to media but Tim Harris, a lawyer acting for Adoboli, said there were sureties involved, that the defendant would have to live at a friend's house in London under curfew and that he would be tagged.
The start of the trial has been set for September 3.
Cases - Bark & Co Solicitors - Specialist Fraud Firm | LiveJournal
http://aliyahbergh07.livejournal.com/2106.html
These are our some of our cases of note:
R v Nadir
Description: Bark & Co have been instructed by the former CEO of Polly Peck International (PPI) in an alleged multi-million pound fraud. The client faced 66 counts of Fraud & Theft, but failed to appear in the 1993 trial. Mr Nadir has returned to the UK to fight to clear his name.
The trial date is now set for January 2012.
Significance: One of the first high profile SFO prosecutions.
R v Ravjani & Others
Bark & Co represented a client accused significant involvement in a complex contra-trading MTIC fraud. The alleged fraud was of a scale that prompted the Government to proffer the case as an explanation as to why the UK balance of payments were adrift for a particular year. Unfortunately, reporting restrictions prevent us from publishing the full outcome at this time.
R v X
Description: This matter involves an insider trading investigation at a number of banks and hedge funds and other large financial institutions conducted by the FSA and SOCA which Reuters reports has “sent shockwaves through the country's financial industry”.
Significance: This case involves significant press interest and involves the representation of a director at a very high profile financial institution.
R v CC & PF
Description: This case involves the arrest of nine directors of an ethical investment company investing in the energy sector. The value of the alleged fraud, which related to the company’s tax structure, is in excess of £85 million. It raises questions on the differences between tax evasion and tax avoidance. The company obtained tax benefits for research and development in the energy sector and secured investment from 750 specialist private investors.
Significance: This case will have far reaching consequences for the whole of the ethical carbon offsetting industry, as well as for all companies with similar tax structures. The company in question was advised by tax specialists and lawyers regarding the legislation involved. HMRC allege that the complex nature of the related companies and tax structures were formed for the specific reason of perpetrating a fraud while the company states that they were not only legitimate but standard industry practice.
R v F & P (Vantis Tax)
Description: We acted for former senior executives for a specialist tax division of Vantis Plc defending allegations of cheating the public revenue. They both vigorously deny the allegations made against them.
Significance: This case involves extremely complex tax, share valuation and trust issues, and raises serious questions concerning the boundaries of tax avoidance schemes and their use. It attracted significant media interest with coverage in the nationals and trade press.
R v S & Others
Description: Bark & Co is representing a client who is involved in a wide ranging FSA investigation into an alleged 11-handed insider dealing fraud. This matter revolves around a spread-betting company that was used to place derivative trades on share price movements. Trades were made close to, or before, significant and unexpected company announcements which influenced the share price in the direction of the placed trade. It is alleged that a ring of traders, some of whom had no previous experience in spread betting, were organised to perpetrate the fraud with the insider information originating from two well-known investment banks.
Significance: The value of the alleged fraud is over £3 million and involved insider information on more than 25 companies that the investment banks dealt with. This case is still at the investigation stage but charges are being brought.
R v W, W, W & D (Southwark Crown Court)
Description: Our client is charged with conspiracy to defraud and money laundering offences. This case follows a joint FSA and City of London Police operation and investigation into a boiler room fraud. It is alleged that several companies that were seeking venture capital were used as vehicles to generate appropriate share capital to sell to victims based in the UK. The boiler rooms were based overseas and unregulated by the FSA. They generated over £30 million in income which was then filtered through a complex network of companies and holding accounts and into UK and offshore accounts.
Significance: The fraud is so large that the FSA has determined that it is limiting the case to six primary front companies. Not only is this case a good example of the scale and increasing prevalence of this type of fraud, it also demonstrates how international operations are being used to bypass the UK financial regulators and authorities.
R v S, R, D, S, S & T (Southwark Crown Court)
Description: This was a six-handed prosecution of the founders and associates of the “Confidential Access” website. Our client is alleged to have used his business to facilitate the sale of false identity documents that were used to commit fraud and crime. The identity documents, which included passports, P45s, bank statements and other financial and identity documents, were marketed and sold as legal “novelty items”, but their accuracy means they were used by clients who were being investigated by the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorism unit. In a joint operation with the Hong Kong Organised Crime Team, the Confidential Access website was temporarily shut down and the servers and business records seized. The website subsequently reopened in another county and the authorities entered into an ongoing battle across several jurisdictions to force the website to close down.
Significance: This case provides a unique insight into the type of identity-based frauds that will become more commonplace in the future. It also shows the difficulties involved in dealing with international and cross-jurisdictional issues surrounding internet free trade and international payment systems. Not surprisingly, the case attracted media attention, although the details remain confidential.
R v L (Southwark Crown Court)
Description: Our client in this case is being re-tried after a trial held in 2008 failed to reach a verdict. The client is charged with cheating the public revenue of £250 million in a large-scale and complex MTIC VAT fraud in the mobile phone handset market.
Significance: The scale of the operation and subsequent investigation was impressive, with 42 arrests in 2003, 96 sets of premises searched and 260 computers and 500,000 documents seized, as well as substantial amounts of electronic data. This fraud is serious and involves highly complex forensic accountancy and international funds tracing aspects. Again, it has attracted considerable media attention.
R v L (Southwark Crown Court)
Description: iSoft was awarded a multi-million pound contract to implement an All Ireland software system. Bark & Co is representing a former director in connection with alleged accounting irregularities in relation to this contract. This case is in the FSA's own words the largest case they have ever investigated.
Significance: iSoft were involved in the implementation of the new NHS IT system, a large and politically sensitive project and the case has received extensive press coverage. It has therefore required extremely sensitive handling. The issues involved are also particularly complex and involve forensic legal and accountancy analysis.
iSoft related cases (representing X)
Description: iSoft was awarded a multi-million pound contract to implement an All Ireland software system. Bark & Co is representing a former director in connection with alleged accounting irregularities in relation to this contract. This case is in the FSA's own words the largest case they have ever investigated.
Significance: iSoft were involved in the implementation of the new NHS IT system, a large and politically sensitive project and the case has received extensive press coverage. It has therefore required extremely sensitive handling. The issues involved are also particularly complex and involve forensic legal and accountancy analysis.
R v R
Description: This is said to be among the biggest MTIC carousel frauds ever prosecuted. It involves a particularly complex form of MTIC fraud called ‘contra-trading’. Here, the perpetrator mixes a ‘clean’ chain of transactions and a ‘dirty’ chain. The key is that they act as importer in the clean chain and exporter in the dirty one, therefore offsetting legal imports against illegal exports, making the VAT claim relatively balanced and the fraud far harder to detect.
Significance: This case is said to be one of the biggest MTIC frauds ever prosecuted and involves billions of pounds worth of trade. It will give rise to national publicity and widespread public concern because MTIC fraud has become so widespread that it is responsible for the UK trade figures being completely miscalculated. In this instance there has been £170 million of fraud identified within the telecoms sector involving the international trading of mobile phones. Contra-trading is an increasing growth area of specialist defence where Bark & Co is among the leaders. This case has at present over 60,000 pages of exhibited prosecution materials with over 100,000 expected, making the estimated cost of prosecuting the case substantial (more than £1million).
R v L, R & H
Description: This was a high-profile SFO prosecution concerning fraudulent trading. The prosecution alleges that there was fraudulent trading over a 3-4 year period at Alfred McAlpine Slate Limited. This took the form of false invoicing and the concealment of the false information from the parent company, Alfred McAlpine plc, and their auditors, by way of forged loans, invoices and manipulation of management packs.
Significance: This case was the subject of a three-month internal investigation by PMCE Coopers Waterhouse and the City law firm, Ashurst. Press interest is high and the case has appeared on Sky News, in The Times, and The Guardian, as well as local papers, financial journals and Reuters. It is alleged that the discovery of the fraud led to a drop in the McAlpine Slate share price and contributed to the acquisition of McAlpine by Carillion plc. With over 50,000 pages of served evidence, this case was both complex and high profile. We were successful in achieving a lenient sentence for our client.
R v Lord Rodley, Coyne & Others
Description: This case involved a conspiracy to defraud the SMBC Bank in London of £227 million and money laundering the proceeds of the fraud. A security guard at SMBC bank, who had access to its computer system, allowed two Belgium computer experts entry into the bank and access to the computer systems outside working hours. They hacked into the bank’s systems to obtain passwords and to transfer funds to accounts set up to launder the proceeds of this fraud.
Significance:Three defendants stood a fully contended cut-throat trial. Our client (David Coyne aka Nash) is alleged to have been involved both in the main plan to defraud the bank and the money laundering as he was the owner of several offshore bank accounts that were allegedly set up to receive the funds
R v F, D & Others
Description: The case results from an investigation into a successful multi-million pound international lottery scam, which began with a complaint concerning unsolicited e-mails from the Philippines. The scam involved claims that the victim would be the beneficiary of a percentage of an estate worth $10.2 million.
Significance: The alarm was raised by Barclays Bank in New York. A joint investigation by the FBI and Metropolitan Police then uncovered a number of victims of the fraud, who were resident in various places, ranging from the USA, to Malaysia, Japan and the Middle East. The joint investigation resulted in six arrests. This case demonstrates our ability to handle complex international fraud cases, requiring the gathering of evidence and information in a number of jurisdictions.
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements
http://apps.bebo.com/widepr/press_release/41014/bark_co_solicitors_london_deferred_prosecution_agreements.html
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus
for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
The US Approach
In the US, DPAs are considered a hugely important weapon in the armoury of a highly successful prosecutor – the Department of Justice, which entered into nine DPAs in 2009. The DPA does pretty much what it says on the tin, deferring criminal prosecution pending certain terms and conditions being agreed (and adhered to) and fled in a formal indictment at court. Typical conditions are that prosecution is deferred for two - three years with the payment of a fine commensurate with the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines, disgorgement of profits, a clear out of implicated directors, a possible pull-out from the market in which the wrongdoing is admitted, and the possible instruction of a court appointed monitor where the corporate does not have proper anti-corruption procedures presently in place.
The appointment of monitors has been particularly contentious in the US where there have been allegations of a lack of transparency in their appointment, cronyism and high cost. The costs charged by monitors is particularly eye-watering to UK onlookers. Innospec were charged $50m for the corporate monitor (described by the sentencing Judge as “an outrage”), agreed as part of their
DPA in the US.
Are DPAs Right for the UK?
As it stands in the UK, the SFO has found it difficult, time consuming and costly to prosecute corporates in the UK for bribery and related offences as well as occasionally stymied by political interference. It is unlikely to find it any easier under the Bribery Act. It should also be noted that the SFO has been given no new money to prosecute offences committed under the Bribery Act. DPAs would therefore be a godsend. Corporates for their part may accept their criminality more readily should they be given the option of accepting a DPA as opposed to being prosecuted with all the economic damage that would entail. Explicit in the agreement of the DPA is that the company is properly prosecutable (ie, the identification principle is met) and the course of conduct meets the criminal test for prosecution ie, this isn’t a civil recovery under Pt.5 of POCA.
Thomas LJ again commented in his Innospec judgment that matters involving corrupt payments “will rarely be appropriate to the dealt with by a civil recovery order”. One wonders whether the judiciary will be resistant to DPAs which explicitly admit criminality but where penalty may be considered tantamount to a civil recovery order.
What Will DPAs Look Like?
The mechanics of DPAs are a long way from being ironed out. The DPAs must have the public’s confidence and, in the words of Garnier be “policed and controlled by the judiciary”. In the event that an offence is either detected, perhaps through a whistleblower, or self-reported and the SFO considers a
DPA may be an appropriate resolution, the Judge will become involved early, and before charges are brought to scrutinize any propsed agreement. This will be problematic. However, Judges in the criminal
justice system are already accustomed to providing early input in sentencing, through the procedure of Goodyear indications. In such cases where an individual is considering pleading to agreed facts he may request a-binding indication on sentence in open court, with reporting restrictions, from the trial Judge. Once given an indication, the defendant is not committed to pleading. It will be the type and severity of the sentence that will be the most contentious aspect of DPAs and the most at risk to accusations of a lack of transparency. In addition, it is essential for the corporates legal team to be able to advise with a degree of reasonable certainty what the likely sentence will be. The US has a system by which sentence can more or less be worked out on a calculator – that is an anathema to Judges here. In light of the Grazia Report, a number of guidelines were introduced in this area (eg, Attorney General’s Guidelines on Pleas, and the SFO Guidelines on Self Reporting), which are instructive for advisers and clients. In
the absence of settled Court of Appeal case law on corporate sentencing, properly debated and approved sentencing guidelines (related to the guidelines already issued by the sentencing council for theft and statutory fraud offences) setting out procedure and factors affecting sentence would be helpful in answering criticism of a lack of transparency as well as assisting parties to the DPA.Finally, it will be important that it is made explicit that while DPAs may prove an alternative to prosecution for corporates, where individual criminality is committed (as is necessary for the corporate to meet the identification principle), DPAs will not provide immunity to those directors deserving of prosecution.
We consider that as with most US developments in business crime, DPAs are likely to prove popular over here with the SFO. The principal question exercising legislators will be how to ensure that DPAs have the public’s confidence that they are fair and just while ensuring that Judges’ concerns will be met and the sacrosant principles underpining sentencing will not be underminded.
Is using the F word to an officer of the law now acceptable?
22 November 2011 No Comment
By Sarah Lewis
Our changing attitude towards bad language was highlighted last week in Harvey v DPP, AC, 17 November 2011 which confirmed that, whilst it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour, swearing at police officers is not a crime because of cers hear foul language all too frequently to be harassed, alarmed or distressed by it.
This is decision overturned the public order conviction of Denzel Harvey, a young suspect who repeatedly said the ‘F’ word while being searched for drugs.Harvey was standing with a group of people outside a block of flats when he was approached by police officers who told him that they wished to search him. His response to the officers was, “F— this man. I ain’t been smoking nothing”. He was warned about his behaviour and threatened with an arrest under s 5 Public Order Act 1996.
When the search revealed nothing, he continued, “Told you, you wouldn’t find f— all”. He was further warned and then, when asked if he had a middle name, he replied, “No, I’ve already f—ing told you so”. Harvey was arrested for a s 5 offence, and subsequently convicted before the Magistrates’ Court who held that “there were people around who don’t need to hear frightening and abusive words issuing from young men” despite there being no evidence that anyone, officer or otherwise, was in fact caused harassment, alarm or distress.”
for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
The US Approach
In the US, DPAs are considered a hugely important weapon in the armoury of a highly successful prosecutor – the Department of Justice, which entered into nine DPAs in 2009. The DPA does pretty much what it says on the tin, deferring criminal prosecution pending certain terms and conditions being agreed (and adhered to) and fled in a formal indictment at court. Typical conditions are that prosecution is deferred for two - three years with the payment of a fine commensurate with the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines, disgorgement of profits, a clear out of implicated directors, a possible pull-out from the market in which the wrongdoing is admitted, and the possible instruction of a court appointed monitor where the corporate does not have proper anti-corruption procedures presently in place.
The appointment of monitors has been particularly contentious in the US where there have been allegations of a lack of transparency in their appointment, cronyism and high cost. The costs charged by monitors is particularly eye-watering to UK onlookers. Innospec were charged $50m for the corporate monitor (described by the sentencing Judge as “an outrage”), agreed as part of their
DPA in the US.
Are DPAs Right for the UK?
As it stands in the UK, the SFO has found it difficult, time consuming and costly to prosecute corporates in the UK for bribery and related offences as well as occasionally stymied by political interference. It is unlikely to find it any easier under the Bribery Act. It should also be noted that the SFO has been given no new money to prosecute offences committed under the Bribery Act. DPAs would therefore be a godsend. Corporates for their part may accept their criminality more readily should they be given the option of accepting a DPA as opposed to being prosecuted with all the economic damage that would entail. Explicit in the agreement of the DPA is that the company is properly prosecutable (ie, the identification principle is met) and the course of conduct meets the criminal test for prosecution ie, this isn’t a civil recovery under Pt.5 of POCA.
Thomas LJ again commented in his Innospec judgment that matters involving corrupt payments “will rarely be appropriate to the dealt with by a civil recovery order”. One wonders whether the judiciary will be resistant to DPAs which explicitly admit criminality but where penalty may be considered tantamount to a civil recovery order.
What Will DPAs Look Like?
The mechanics of DPAs are a long way from being ironed out. The DPAs must have the public’s confidence and, in the words of Garnier be “policed and controlled by the judiciary”. In the event that an offence is either detected, perhaps through a whistleblower, or self-reported and the SFO considers a
DPA may be an appropriate resolution, the Judge will become involved early, and before charges are brought to scrutinize any propsed agreement. This will be problematic. However, Judges in the criminal
justice system are already accustomed to providing early input in sentencing, through the procedure of Goodyear indications. In such cases where an individual is considering pleading to agreed facts he may request a-binding indication on sentence in open court, with reporting restrictions, from the trial Judge. Once given an indication, the defendant is not committed to pleading. It will be the type and severity of the sentence that will be the most contentious aspect of DPAs and the most at risk to accusations of a lack of transparency. In addition, it is essential for the corporates legal team to be able to advise with a degree of reasonable certainty what the likely sentence will be. The US has a system by which sentence can more or less be worked out on a calculator – that is an anathema to Judges here. In light of the Grazia Report, a number of guidelines were introduced in this area (eg, Attorney General’s Guidelines on Pleas, and the SFO Guidelines on Self Reporting), which are instructive for advisers and clients. In
the absence of settled Court of Appeal case law on corporate sentencing, properly debated and approved sentencing guidelines (related to the guidelines already issued by the sentencing council for theft and statutory fraud offences) setting out procedure and factors affecting sentence would be helpful in answering criticism of a lack of transparency as well as assisting parties to the DPA.Finally, it will be important that it is made explicit that while DPAs may prove an alternative to prosecution for corporates, where individual criminality is committed (as is necessary for the corporate to meet the identification principle), DPAs will not provide immunity to those directors deserving of prosecution.
We consider that as with most US developments in business crime, DPAs are likely to prove popular over here with the SFO. The principal question exercising legislators will be how to ensure that DPAs have the public’s confidence that they are fair and just while ensuring that Judges’ concerns will be met and the sacrosant principles underpining sentencing will not be underminded.
Is using the F word to an officer of the law now acceptable?
22 November 2011 No Comment
By Sarah Lewis
Our changing attitude towards bad language was highlighted last week in Harvey v DPP, AC, 17 November 2011 which confirmed that, whilst it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour, swearing at police officers is not a crime because of cers hear foul language all too frequently to be harassed, alarmed or distressed by it.
This is decision overturned the public order conviction of Denzel Harvey, a young suspect who repeatedly said the ‘F’ word while being searched for drugs.Harvey was standing with a group of people outside a block of flats when he was approached by police officers who told him that they wished to search him. His response to the officers was, “F— this man. I ain’t been smoking nothing”. He was warned about his behaviour and threatened with an arrest under s 5 Public Order Act 1996.
When the search revealed nothing, he continued, “Told you, you wouldn’t find f— all”. He was further warned and then, when asked if he had a middle name, he replied, “No, I’ve already f—ing told you so”. Harvey was arrested for a s 5 offence, and subsequently convicted before the Magistrates’ Court who held that “there were people around who don’t need to hear frightening and abusive words issuing from young men” despite there being no evidence that anyone, officer or otherwise, was in fact caused harassment, alarm or distress.”
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements // Current TV
http://current.com/news-and-politics/93812147_bark-co-solicitors-london-deferred-prosecution-agreements.htm
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously
scrutinized in open court”.
The US Approach
In the US, DPAs are considered a hugely important weapon in the armoury of a highly successful prosecutor – the Department of Justice, which entered into nine DPAs in 2009. The DPA does pretty much what it says on the tin, deferring criminal prosecution pending certain terms and conditions being agreed (and adhered to) and fled in a formal indictment at court. Typical conditions are that prosecution is deferred for two - three years with the payment of a fine commensurate with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, disgorgement of profits, a clear out of implicated directors, a possible pull-out from the market in which the wrongdoing is admitted, and the possible instruction of a court appointed monitor where the corporate does not have proper anti-corruption procedures presently in place.
The appointment of monitors has been particularly contentious in the US where there have been allegations of a lack of transparency in their appointment, cronyism and high cost. The costs charged by monitors is particularly eye-watering to UK onlookers. Innospec were charged $50m for the corporate monitor (described by the sentencing Judge as “an outrage”), agreed as part of their
DPA in the US.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously
scrutinized in open court”.
The US Approach
In the US, DPAs are considered a hugely important weapon in the armoury of a highly successful prosecutor – the Department of Justice, which entered into nine DPAs in 2009. The DPA does pretty much what it says on the tin, deferring criminal prosecution pending certain terms and conditions being agreed (and adhered to) and fled in a formal indictment at court. Typical conditions are that prosecution is deferred for two - three years with the payment of a fine commensurate with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, disgorgement of profits, a clear out of implicated directors, a possible pull-out from the market in which the wrongdoing is admitted, and the possible instruction of a court appointed monitor where the corporate does not have proper anti-corruption procedures presently in place.
The appointment of monitors has been particularly contentious in the US where there have been allegations of a lack of transparency in their appointment, cronyism and high cost. The costs charged by monitors is particularly eye-watering to UK onlookers. Innospec were charged $50m for the corporate monitor (described by the sentencing Judge as “an outrage”), agreed as part of their
DPA in the US.
Asil Nadir returns to the UK to fight for justice
http://www.barkco.co.uk/News/Asil+Nadir+returns+to+the+UK+to+fight+for+justice
Mr Asil Nadir has returned to the UK from Northern Cyprus in order to fight to clear his name and get justice after almost two decades of exile. Mr Nadir comments "We've a mission to fulfil. Somehow, having endured this injustice for 20 years, I feel it's time now to put closure to this in a most acceptable way."
The defence team from Bark & Co Solicitors with Mr William Clegg QC and Mr Dean Armstrong are committed to ensuring the delivery of a fair legal process that had been previously been denied to our client.
Updated 26.08.2010 - 22:35:
Mr Nadir returns today to the UK to fight for justice. This follows last month's successful application in the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) that enabled his return from Northern Cyprus to fight the charges against him.
Mr Nadir agreed to an exclusive interview with Sky News to talk about why he is returning to fight the accusations against him. Watch a pre-interview here.
Sky News will be broadcasting a special documentary "Unfinished Business: Return Of Asil Nadir" at 7.30pm on Friday 27th August.
The Times has been granted access to Mr Nadir's preparations to return to the UK and also with coverage and a video interview.
BBC news reports his return here
ITN covers his return here.
Mr Nadir will appear before the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) on Friday 3rd September for an initial hearing, where a timetable for the case will be decided. Bark & Co Solicitors will then advance an abuse of process argument.
Updated 23.07.2010:
Following meetings with Mr Nadir, Bark & Co have instructed Mr William Clegg QC and Mr Dean Armstrong both of 2 Bedford Row Chambers. After a long and lengthy examination of all previous Court appearances, a important discovery was uncovered by the team which led to the matter being listed for a hearing at the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) today.
Despite previous advice that the Court would not entertain any bail application being heard in the absence of Mr.Nadir, our defence team disagreed with this approach and were shown to be correct in their interpretation of the present situation. Mr Justice Bean agreed with the application being heard in spite of the SFO's objections. The outcome was that bail was granted and the outstanding arrest warrant was quashed.
For the first time since 1993, it was conceded that Mr.Nadir was free to obtain a British passport so that he could return to the UK on condition that he appeared at the Old Bailey on the 3rd September 2010. The arrest warrant was also dismissed because it was agreed that technically Mr. Nadir was not on bail in 1993.
The Times Reports on 7th June 2010:
“Asil Nadir has instructed lawyers in a fresh attempt to clear a path for his return to Britain, The Times has learnt. Mr Nadir, 69, who was a Conservative Party donor, fled to northern Cyprus in 1993 to avoid a £34 million fraud trial centered on the collapse of his Polly Peck business empire. His decision to abscond forced the resignation of Michael Mates, a junior minister in John Major’s Government, and provoked a political scandal."
Updated 07.06.2010:
Mr Nadir, who now runs a media company in Northern Cyprus, wants to return to argue that there was a grave abuse of process in the case brought against him by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). He alleges that the police and the SFO placed the Judge in his case under improper pressure, made false allegations of corruption against him and his advisers and seized documents that were necessary for his proper defence.
As a wanted man, Mr Nadir would face arrest if he returned to Britain. It is understood he wants a guarantee of bail if he returns to fight his case. He has hired Bark & Co, the London Solicitors specialising in Criminal Fraud defence work, and a leading QC has been instructed to examine the case.
Press & Media Note:
Bark & Co Solicitors will co-ordinate all interviews with our client. Any official press releases, comments or statements will be issued via this website. Please contact us at contact@barkco.com with all enquiries relating to this case or our client.
Mr Asil Nadir has returned to the UK from Northern Cyprus in order to fight to clear his name and get justice after almost two decades of exile. Mr Nadir comments "We've a mission to fulfil. Somehow, having endured this injustice for 20 years, I feel it's time now to put closure to this in a most acceptable way."
The defence team from Bark & Co Solicitors with Mr William Clegg QC and Mr Dean Armstrong are committed to ensuring the delivery of a fair legal process that had been previously been denied to our client.
Updated 26.08.2010 - 22:35:
Mr Nadir returns today to the UK to fight for justice. This follows last month's successful application in the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) that enabled his return from Northern Cyprus to fight the charges against him.
Mr Nadir agreed to an exclusive interview with Sky News to talk about why he is returning to fight the accusations against him. Watch a pre-interview here.
Sky News will be broadcasting a special documentary "Unfinished Business: Return Of Asil Nadir" at 7.30pm on Friday 27th August.
The Times has been granted access to Mr Nadir's preparations to return to the UK and also with coverage and a video interview.
BBC news reports his return here
ITN covers his return here.
Mr Nadir will appear before the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) on Friday 3rd September for an initial hearing, where a timetable for the case will be decided. Bark & Co Solicitors will then advance an abuse of process argument.
Updated 23.07.2010:
Following meetings with Mr Nadir, Bark & Co have instructed Mr William Clegg QC and Mr Dean Armstrong both of 2 Bedford Row Chambers. After a long and lengthy examination of all previous Court appearances, a important discovery was uncovered by the team which led to the matter being listed for a hearing at the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) today.
Despite previous advice that the Court would not entertain any bail application being heard in the absence of Mr.Nadir, our defence team disagreed with this approach and were shown to be correct in their interpretation of the present situation. Mr Justice Bean agreed with the application being heard in spite of the SFO's objections. The outcome was that bail was granted and the outstanding arrest warrant was quashed.
For the first time since 1993, it was conceded that Mr.Nadir was free to obtain a British passport so that he could return to the UK on condition that he appeared at the Old Bailey on the 3rd September 2010. The arrest warrant was also dismissed because it was agreed that technically Mr. Nadir was not on bail in 1993.
The Times Reports on 7th June 2010:
“Asil Nadir has instructed lawyers in a fresh attempt to clear a path for his return to Britain, The Times has learnt. Mr Nadir, 69, who was a Conservative Party donor, fled to northern Cyprus in 1993 to avoid a £34 million fraud trial centered on the collapse of his Polly Peck business empire. His decision to abscond forced the resignation of Michael Mates, a junior minister in John Major’s Government, and provoked a political scandal."
Updated 07.06.2010:
Mr Nadir, who now runs a media company in Northern Cyprus, wants to return to argue that there was a grave abuse of process in the case brought against him by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). He alleges that the police and the SFO placed the Judge in his case under improper pressure, made false allegations of corruption against him and his advisers and seized documents that were necessary for his proper defence.
As a wanted man, Mr Nadir would face arrest if he returned to Britain. It is understood he wants a guarantee of bail if he returns to fight his case. He has hired Bark & Co, the London Solicitors specialising in Criminal Fraud defence work, and a leading QC has been instructed to examine the case.
Press & Media Note:
Bark & Co Solicitors will co-ordinate all interviews with our client. Any official press releases, comments or statements will be issued via this website. Please contact us at contact@barkco.com with all enquiries relating to this case or our client.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)