The Serious Fraud Office’s director has refused to answer questions from MPs about the quashing of a second former oil executive’s bribery conviction, saying she does not want to ‘impinge on’ a judge-led review of the watchdog’s disclosure failures.
Lisa Osofsky said she is ‘not in a position to answer anything’ about last week’s decision to overturn the conviction of Paul Bond, who was jailed for conspiracy to give corrupt payments following the SFO’s investigation into bribery involving the Unaoil energy consultancy.
The Court of Appeal criticised the SFO’s failure to disclose information about ‘wholly inappropriate’ contacts between former US Drug Enforcement Administration agent David Tinsley – who was acting on behalf of the family which owned and controlled Unaoil – and senior officials at the SFO, including Osofsky.
The quashing of former Unaoil executive Ziad Akle’s conviction for bribery in December had already prompted attorney general Suella Braverman to announce an independent review led by former High Court judge and former director of public prosecutions Sir David Calvert-Smith.
At the House of Commons’ justice committee today, Conservative MP Paul Maynard asked Osofsky: ‘What estimate have you made of the costs to the Serious Fraud Office of the failure of the Unaoil case, including employment tribunal costs that may arise?’
Osofsky replied: ‘The attorney general has asked for a review, it is being conducted by Sir David Calvert-Smith … at this point, I am very grateful for his efforts. We are supporting that review, we are very cooperative.
‘We want to learn, we want to learn to do better, we want to hear his recommendations and respond to them so, at this point, it his review and I am not in a position to answer anything further with regard to that case.’
Maynard asked: ‘For what reason did the SFO engage with David Tinsley and why wasn’t the relationship initially disclosed?’
Osofsky said: ‘I can’t answer that question for reason I just explained, I really must defer to the attorney general’s review.’
Conservative MP Laura Farris intervened, saying: ‘Well, isn’t the Court of Appeal judgment a matter of public record? They have made findings.’
Osofsky said: ‘Yes, and I am duty bound to wait for the recommendations of Sir David Calvert-Smith. I am not at liberty to talk about that case now. I don’t want to in any way either impinge on, or be seen to impinge on, his work.’
Maynard then asked about the ‘discrepancy’ in the accounts given by Osofsky and Tinsley in relation to how many times they had met, to which Osofsky said: ‘I am going to gladly and willingly explain everything to Sir David Calvert-Smith.’
