Asked by: Iqbal Mohamed (Independent - Dewsbury and Batley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, whether changes have been made to Serious Fraud Office governance and oversight arrangements since July 2025.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Attorney General
The SFO operates within a well-established governance framework, including accountability through the Attorney General’s superintendence functions and the appointment of Non-Executive Directors as set out in their Framework Agreement. Governance arrangements are kept under review in line with good practice, with the Framework Agreement being reviewed and updated in 2024.
Asked by: Iqbal Mohamed (Independent - Dewsbury and Batley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, what internal oversight exists to ensure consistency of prosecutorial decisions.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Attorney General
The Serious Fraud Office is an independent prosecuting authority. Its operational decisions, including whether to investigate or prosecute individuals, are the responsibility of the Director in accordance with the law. Where appropriate, the Law Officers will engage with the SFO at a strategic level to support effective delivery of its functions.
Asked by: Iqbal Mohamed (Independent - Dewsbury and Batley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, how many individuals were charged in relation to LIBOR manipulation; and how many investigations concluded without charges, disaggregated by seniority where such information is held.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Attorney General
13 individuals were charged in relation to the Libor investigation. 5 were subsequently found guilty and convicted. The release of the information on investigations concluded without charges would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime.
Asked by: Iqbal Mohamed (Independent - Dewsbury and Batley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, whether her Department has issued any guidance to the Serious Fraud Office following the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Respondent) v Hayes (Appellant) UKSC/2024/0087.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Attorney General
The judgement made in Tom Hayes’ and Carlo Palombo’s appeal to the Supreme Court regarding their convictions for manipulating Libor and Euribor was not based on flaws in the SFO’s procedures and the need for internal guidance, but that the directions given by the judge at their trials were incorrect in law. The court ruled that trial judges had misdirected juries by treating the question of whether a bank submission is "dishonest" as a matter of law, rather than leaving it to the jury.
The defences contention was that was that this removed from the jury an essential consideration of fact which ought to have been for them to determine. In quashing the convictions, the Supreme Court has indicated agreement with that view.
The SFO was not criticised in the judgment and carefully considers judgments of this nature, as part of its ongoing commitment to delivering effective and fair prosecutions
Asked by: Iqbal Mohamed (Independent - Dewsbury and Batley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, whether she plans to review the Serious Fraud Office’s internal procedures following the quashing of Mr Tom Hayes’ conviction by the Supreme Court.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Attorney General
The judgement made in Tom Hayes’ and Carlo Palombo’s appeal to the Supreme Court regarding their convictions for manipulating Libor and Euribor was not based on flaws in the SFO’s procedures, but that the directions given by the judge at their trials were incorrect in law. The court ruled that trial judges had misdirected juries by treating the question of whether a bank submission is "dishonest" as a matter of law, rather than leaving it to the jury.
The defence’s contention was that was that this removed from the jury an essential consideration of fact which ought to have been for them to determine. In quashing the convictions, the Supreme Court has indicated agreement with that view.
The SFO was not criticised in the judgment and carefully considers judgments of this nature, as part of its ongoing commitment to delivering effective and fair prosecutions.
Asked by: Iqbal Mohamed (Independent - Dewsbury and Batley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, what records are retained by the Serious Fraud Office concerning decisions not to charge individuals during the LIBOR investigations, and for how long are those records kept.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Attorney General
SFO case records are retained in line with its retention policy. This specifies that case related material should be maintained for at least 7 years following case closure, or the closure of any related appeals. Some material may be held for up to 20 years if it were subsequently deemed as being of long-term interest, before being transferred to the National Archives.
Asked by: Iqbal Mohamed (Independent - Dewsbury and Batley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, what procedures were in place during LIBOR investigations to assess the role of senior executives when deciding the scope of criminal inquiries.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Attorney General
The SFO’s investigations into Libor were conducted in line with accepted principles for investigating criminal cases. SFO case teams have access to detailed internal guidance to ensure a consistency of approach on its cases and decisions to charge are the responsibility of the Director in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.