Financial Crime Expert Says ‘Blockbuster’ Method Allows For Flexibility Into Investigating Large Scale Cases

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has again requested more money from ministers, causing a divide with MPs and solicitors as to whether the nation’s principal fraud-buster should have an increasingly structured funding method, or to continue the so called ‘cap-in-hand’ system. 

Financial crime expert at law firm Irwin Mitchell argues that the SFO’s funding on a case by case basis is more economical and allows for flexibility to investigate large scale cases such as companies implicated in international bribery or financial crime.

The SFO is the UK body which investigates and prosecutes serious and complex fraud. The most recent request by them, £5.5m, has been revealed by solicitor general Robert Buckland QC.

The SFO currently relies partly on core funding, which has been steadily reduced over the years from £40m in 2010 to £29m in the latest spending review, according to conservative MP Edward Garnier QC. 

The government body is also partly funded on ‘blockbuster’ method – where a special grant from the Treasury is supplied for serious cases, on a case-by-case basis.

In last week’s parliamentary debate, MPs such as labour MP Stephen Timms, said that the SFO has become reliant on the Treasury for case-by-case funding which doesn’t help to maintain independence or security – calling for more core funding to aid investigations.

Sarah Wallace, financial crime expert at Irwin Mitchell, said:

An SFO spokesperson told the Gazette: ‘We are a comparatively small demand-led organisation taking on quite large and expensive cases by their very nature and it is not possible to anticipate what is around the corner. The blockbuster funding approach allows us to do these cases while avoiding the maintenance of very high permanent staffing levels, which we may not always need’.