This raises the question of disclosure. If the SFO offers a company the opportunity to participate in the dpa negotiations, it assumes a disclosure obligation. The Code of Conduct for Deferred Monitoring states that the company “should have sufficient information to play an informed role in the negotiations. The purpose of the disclosure here is to ensure that the negotiations are fair and that (the company) is not guided by the force of prosecution. It follows that “the prosecutor must always live the potential need to disclose documents in the interests of justice and fairness” and that the company`s “reasonable and specific disclosure requests” must be considered. This is the case of the Sweett Group, in which the SFO refused to enter into the DPA discussions and successfully pursue the proceedings. Davis J said G4S acted immediately after reports of misconduct were brought to the public`s attention in 2014. On the other hand, it was found that the Sweett Group had “deliberately ignored” reports of corrupt practices. The SFO Corporate Co-operation Guidance, published in August 2019, does not penalize corporate organizations for decisions to waive privileges, but only that such decisions mean that the anti-prosecution factor will not be reached. As might be expected given the date of the negotiations in this case, the SFO`s decision to enter into a CCA is consistent with its stated policy. International cooperation between regulators and prosecutors has increased in recent years, and the risk of a company and its D-Os being confronted with parallel investigations/prosecutions with several jurisdictions is very real. In January 2020, the SFO entered into a record-breaking DPA with global aerospace company Airbus SE, which agreed to pay a fine and cost 991 million euros here in the UK and a total of 3.6 billion euros, as part of the world`s largest bribery decision involving british, French and U.S.
authorities. The importance of such cooperation between agencies was underlined in Ms Osofsky`s statement at the publication of the SFO`s 2019-2020 annual report and accounts: “Cooperation with other criminal justice services is essential for the SFO, as almost all of our cases involve cooperation with partners, both domestically and internationally; We have considerable resources to strengthen these relationships at the operational and strategic levels. The resolution on the Airbus case shows that we are capable of consolidating strong international ties and unified cooperation. Even in cases that do not yield record results, we prioritize strengthening our partnerships and developing ways to combat transnational economic crime in a coordinated and collaborative manner. The definition of the level of reduction at this level gives companies greater clarity in determining when and how to cooperate in concluding a data protection declaration. In this case, the fine imposed was approximately $6.4 million higher than it would have been if the same approach to cooperation had been adopted at an early stage.