Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Tina Cowen
    • D A T Green
    • Richard Stewart
    • Mor Swiel
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Stephen Dnes
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Robert Harvey
    • Martina Raciti
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Xavier Prida
    • Stewart White
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Hannah Leader
    • Peter Dally
    • Antony Corel
    • Sue Warwick
    • Tony Curzon-Price
    • Shardi Shameli
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Ewelina James
    • Maria Constantin
    • Sophia Yakhno
    • Rachael Machado
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

Limits on Serious Fraud Office’s international document compulsion powers confirmed by Supreme Court

May 4, 2021By Preiskel & Co

On 5 February 2021, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of R (on the application of KBR, Inc) (Appellant) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 2 (“KBR v SFO”). The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (“CJA 1987”) does not give the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) the power to compel a foreign company to produce documents held outside the UK.

This decision overturns the Divisional Court hearing in 2018, where the High Court considered that section 2(3) CJA 1987 has international application if there is sufficient connection between the company receiving the notice to produce materials and the UK. The Supreme Court, however, found that there was nothing in the wording of the CJA 1987 to imply the Parliament’s intention that section 2(3) should have such wide application.

Background of the case:

KBR is a company incorporated in the United States, with a subsidiary in the UK called Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd. In 2017, the SFO issued a section 2(3) notice requiring the UK subsidiary to produce certain documents and materials. The subsidiary provided most of the materials, apart from certain documents, which they claimed were held by KBR in the United States. Following the response, the SFO met with KBR in London to discuss the exchange of materials. In addition to discussing, the SFO served a section 2(3) notice on KBR to produce the documents held in the United States, failing which they would face criminal sanctions.  KBR refused to do so and filed a claim for judicial review on the basis that the notice was ultra vires. KBR claimed the SFO should have requested an application for assistance under the mutual legal assistance agreements between countries.

The judgment:

The High Court declared KBR unsuccessful, however permission for appeal was granted. The Court of Appeal also declared KBR unsuccessful, giving section 2(3) a large international application in circumstances where there is “sufficient connection” between the foreign company and the UK.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, unanimously allowed the appeal and upheld KBR’s claim, ruling that section 2(3) does not have extraterritorial effect. The SFO can compel the production of documents held by UK companies in the UK and internationally but cannot issue such notices on non-UK companies. The Supreme Court further clarified that the SFO does not have jurisdiction to do so, even though KBR was “sufficiently connected” to the UK subsidiary.  The SFO must make use of the mutual legal assistance frameworks developed by Parliament to resolve international investigations.

Conclusion and implications:

The SFO has been increasingly confronted with highly international investigations (such as the Airbus investigation related to the criminal conduct in Malaysia, Sri Lanka). When demanding materials held overseas in such investigations, the SFO must seek mutual cooperation and mutual legal assistance requests between countries. However, these requests can often delay the process of obtaining the relevant documents.

This is the first case addressing the international powers of section 2(3). The Supreme Court limited section 2(3)’s application to UK companies only, perhaps escaping the difficulties that an extraterritorial application would have posed to multinational corporations with subsidiaries in the UK. Instead, the framework of mutual legal assistance remains the route for the SFO when requesting the provision of internationally held documents by non-UK companies.

Please contact Robert Dougans if you have any questions relating to the above.

 

Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets
    March 22, 2023
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape
    March 22, 2023
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill
    March 17, 2023
  • Stormy weather for cloud computing in the EU
    March 16, 2023
  • Inmarsat Takeover Provisionally Cleared for Take-Off
    March 10, 2023
  • EDPB’s Feedback on the New EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework
    March 6, 2023
  • UK Data Reform Bill to return to the House of Commons
    March 3, 2023
  • DCMS Publishes New Security and Privacy Principles for App Store Operators and Developers
    February 16, 2023
  • DPO’s Dismissal & Conflicts of Interest Under The EU GDPR – CJEU Ruling
    February 14, 2023
  • ICO – Change of Deadline for Reporting Breach Notifications for Communication Service Providers
    February 6, 2023
  • General EU Requirements for Cookie Banners – EDPB Task Force Report
    January 27, 2023
  • Ofcom Launches Investigation into BT Following Suspected Breaches of Consumer Protections Post Implementation of EECC
    January 27, 2023

The Preiskel Blog

  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets 22 Mar 2023
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape 22 Mar 2023
  • Issues in the UK’s forthcoming Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill 17 Mar 2023
  • Stormy weather for cloud computing in the EU 16 Mar 2023

Preiskel news

  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, quoted by IT Pro on the costs incurred by MNOs
  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, will be a panellist at GCCM Carrier Community 2023 on IOT
  • Jose Saras and Xavier Prida Awarded First Place as Data Protection Thought Leaders in the UK
  • Ronnie Preiskel chosen to judge 24 May 2023 The Tech Capital Global Awards
Preiskel tweets
  • White House’s Economic Report of the President sets out a roadmap to improve competition in digital markets. Find o… https://t.co/S7J7sX3kfs5 hours ago
  • Brussels Conference brings in industry leaders to discuss the international antitrust landscape. Find out more at: https://t.co/JN5P4COQ4f6 hours ago
  • Stormy weather for cloud computing in the EU. Find out more at: https://t.co/dOpC8u4wLf6 days ago
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2023 | Site map | Legal notices | Cookie Policy | Privacy