The UK anti-fraud agency has applied to the court on Monday for permission to appeal two recent decisions that found it liable, as the long-running ENRC litigation battles on.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was found by Mr Justice Waksman to be liable for a legal bill back in December.
The SFO has been involved in the long-running dispute by the Kazakh mining firm Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), ever since it kicked off an investigation into it over alleged bribery and corruption back in 2013.
The same judge handed down his first decision on this case back in May 2022, that ex-lawyer Neil Gerrard had breached his duties and that SFO officials had acted “recklessly” and engaged in “bad faith opportunism” by accepting leaked documents from the former ENRC lawyer.
Mr Justice Waksman found in December that the SFO would not have commenced the criminal investigation into ENRC but for Gerrard’s breaches of his legal duties. The judge found that SFO’s wrongdoings had a “sufficiently causal connection” to ENRC’s losses stemming from the agency’s probe and the law firm’s Dechert internal investigation.
For a full understanding of this lengthy case, City A.M., outlined how this litigation came about with a spotlight on Neil Gerrard.
This week, the SFO is seeking permission to appeal Waksman’s past two rulings that it was liable to ENRC over Gerrard’s breach of duties.
The agency appeal is based on nine grounds, including that the judge made incorrect findings of fact including in respect of the credibility of two SFO witnesses, and he failed to account for various other causal factors that led to the opening of its investigation.
City A.M., understands that the SFO has agreed to make an interim payment to ENRC legal costs and losses to the company pre-2013, which was £9m. This payment is standard practice, and if the SFO are successful in its appeal, these costs will be repaid.
The parties are currently at a consequential hearing which started on Monday, and is set to finish on Wednesday. The judge will make a ruling on SFO’s appeal application on Wednesday morning.
The SFO was contacted for comment.
Read more