A business which was subject to a deferred prosecution agreement has argued that the Serious Fraud Office cannot enforce the £2 million agreed payment now that the DPA has expired.
The SFO and scientific instrument maker Güralp Systems Ltd finalised a DPA in 2019 for £2,069,861 to be paid within five years, as well as a number of other obligations. The sum was the gross profit made from allegedly criminal activity but no timetable for payment was set. While the company met the rest of its obligations under the DPA, it did not make the payment under the agreement, which expired in October 2024. The High Court yesterday heard an appeal by Güralp against a ruling earlier this year that the SFO could still enforce the payment.
For Güralp, Simon Farrell KC said the DPA had not been well drafted and was 'not properly thought through'. However that did not mean that the expiry date could be put to one side. The law on what should happen after its expiry 'is crystal clear', he told the court.
Read more
Güralp had ‘cooperated throughout’, he said: ‘This is not that complicated. The parties knew it was five years. The expiry date has expired. Now for the court to try to construct an expiry date from parts of this agreement, in my respectful submission, is the wrong approach.'
Trevor Archer, for the SFO, described the proceedings as ‘novel’ - they were the first appeal in relation to DPAs to reach the court. A DPA is a contract, he said: 'It cannot reasonably be suggested that the parties or the court intended that non-payment would result in the DPA expiring without any consequence.’
The court heard it would be a ‘truly astonishing outcome under the interest of justice test’ if the company not paying the sum under the DPA by the time of the expiry date would mean that the DPA would expire without consequence. He added: ‘If the argument [of the company] succeeds, it will risk bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute.’
Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Calver reserved judgment.
