Serious Fraud Office’s Refreshed Guidance
The UK Serious Fraud Office has issued refreshed guidance on how corporate compliance programmes factor into charging decisions and deferred prosecution agreements. While the update aims to improve transparency, key judgments remain discretionary.
Lisa McKinnon-Lower comments that the guidance marks progress but leaves unresolved uncertainty. “Significant discretion remains” in how the SFO assesses both “effective compliance” and “genuine cooperation”.
She adds that organisations receive clearer signals but no firm route map. “While companies now have better signposts, they still lack a predictable roadmap.”
Lisa also highlights the strategic risk for businesses considering early engagement. The guidance “still leaves open the risk that approaching the SFO too early or offering too much may not translate into a more favourable outcome”.
Read the full article in Compliance Week here (paywall): SFO guidance on evaluating compliance programs short on specifics, experts say
Read Lisa’s full comments below:
“The refreshed guidance is a step toward greater transparency, it sets clearer expectations that the SFO will scrutinise compliance programmes when considering prosecution decisions, DPAs, monitorships, and sentencing. However, significant discretion remains and a lot of the guidance restates existing or previously established practice. Furthermore, the criteria for what constitutes “effective compliance” or “genuine cooperation” are still subjective, so while companies now have better signposts, they still lack a predictable roadmap.
“Companies should recognise that compliance will be judged dynamically, not just “on paper,” but by how risks are identified, escalated, and remediated in practice. The guidance reinforces the value of rapid cooperation, strengthened internal investigations, and proactive remediation. The downside is that compliance expectations continue to rise, and companies without well-resourced systems may struggle to demonstrate the “effectiveness” the SFO now emphasises.
“A company’s best position is to show early engagement, openness, and meaningful remedial action, backed by documented compliance governance. Companies must tread carefully around privilege, cooperation should not mean undermining fair process or internal accountability. The guidance still leaves open the risk that approaching the SFO too early or offering too much may not translate into a more favourable outcome.
“The focus on compliance effectiveness and post-breach remediation aligns more closely with U.S. and European enforcement practice, and the guidance takes a step toward the DOJ’s clearer cooperation credit framework. Yet compared to the U.S., the SFO still offers fewer guarantees, the high bar for DPAs and persistent uncertainty around how cooperation credit is quantified make the UK regime less predictable for corporates weighing whether to self-report.
“Overall, the guidance moves the SFO closer to international standards on corporate compliance evaluation, but companies must still navigate a landscape where discretion outweighs certainty.”
