Memorandum submitted by Detective Chief
Superintendent Stephen Head (City of London Police) (BB 58)
This document is submitted by Detective Chief
Superintendent Stephen Head, of the City of London Police, as
written evidence in support of the oral evidence provided to the
committee on 10 June 2009.
This evidence is focused on the four specific
questions, set by the "Joint Committee", where written
evidence has been requested. This report also includes an additional
section outlining the work being conducted by the City of London
Police's "Overseas Anti Corruption Unit", in relation
to the extent and nature of overseas corruption and bribery. This
has been included following a request for more information, relating
to this initiative, during the oral evidence provided by Detective
Chief Superintendent Head on 10 June 2009.
This written submission does not consider the
Bribery Bill in detail. The legal scrutiny and examination has
been provided directly by the Director of Public Prosecutions,
and as I am in full agreement with his written and oral evidence
it is felt that there is no value in further comment, other than
to place on record the full support for the views of the DPP,
on the proposed Bill.
1. Q: Is the extra-territorial reach of
the draft bill satisfactory? In practice, would you investigate
and prosecute companies that have a limited connection to the
UK?
The proposed legislation outlined in the draft
Bribery Bill provides the police service with a necessary set
of enforcement tools to appropriately investigate offences of
corruption and bribery, wherever they occur. The current legislation
and proposed bill do not alter in this regard and as such do not
cause the police service any area of concern. The challenges in
this area are not the scope of the extra-territorial reach but
of the capability and capacity for International "Mutual
Legal Assistance". The nature of overseas corruption and
bribery offences require significant international co-operation.
The relationships with European, US and Commonwealth partners
provide a solid foundation for the capture and exchange of information
and evidence. Offences of this nature however often involve the
development of international "law enforcement" relationships
in emerging and developing countries and it is in this area where
the challenges lay. The legislation may allow us to reach further;
however this is a different thing than being able to do something
meaningful once we are there. We would therefore like to highlight
this area to ensure that the strategic role out of the legislation
is cognisant of these challenges.
The priority for the police service, and the
OACU, is to focus on the areas that are causing the greatest harm
and our scope is to investigate corruption and bribery involving
UK (registered) business or citizens. This includes offences committed
within the UK, but involving overseas contracts, companies and
individuals, in addition to offences committed overseas where
UK citizens or businesses are involved in the offence. This therefore
captures a wide range of possibilities and thus creates many scenarios
where companies, who have a limited connection with the UK, fall
within an investigation. Where this occurs such companies will
be investigated in the same way, as a "UK" originating
company would be.
The unit will however also consider wider "Money
Laundering" and "Fraud Act" offences, and will
work with the regulators, HMRC and overseas law enforcement agencies
where the scope and powers of others are better placed to take
the necessary action.
2. Q: Does the draft Bill make it clear
when facilitation payments and corporate hospitality will be lawful?
Can we rely on prosecutorial discretion or guidance to ensure
that enforcement is well targeted?
The draft Bill does not spell out a template
for each and every occasion and nor should it seek to. The Bill
does however make it clear that such behaviour must be considered
in context, and I am satisfied that the draft Bill is workable
in this area.
There is however scope for better guidance to
be given to allow greater consistency in the interpretation of
context and that the authors of such guidance could significantly
reduce the need for the context to be set by way of case law.
Such guidance would need to be meaningful, well informed and accessible
to provide the context from which behaviour can be assessed.
This works well in other areas, such as money
laundering, and greatly assists all involved in the development
of a clear code of conduct and acts as the point where behaviour
can be assessed before it reaches the stage of having to enforce
the law. In essence a stronger code, or regulatory framework,
would assist law enforcement activity by reducing the need to
investigate each case and wait for a court, alone, to decide the
context of the hospitality of facility payment.
Prosecutorial discretion cannot provide this
guidance and the targeting of enforcement activity must pull its
focus from pools of information that direct the need, on behalf
of society. The prosecution agencies can only assess what is presented
to them and there are many cases, intelligence products and forms
of information, that are considered and investigated that are
never presented to the prosecution agencies.
Enforcement therefore must develop a system
and model for assessing allegations of overseas corruption and
bribery so that resource and enforcement powers are appropriately
focused on the areas that cause the creates harm. This can be
achieved through a robust assessment and intelligence collection
process, which would collate and interpret knowledge relating
to corruption, from all sources. This pilot for this framework
is currently being tested and is described in section 5 of
this report.
3. Q: Are you concerned that security
services can be exempted from prosecution for bribery, whereas
police and other investigators cannot?
It is a vital that law enforcement or security
agencies are provided with powers and framework necessary for
them to complete their roles, as described by the relevant legislation,
and on behalf of the UK. There is therefore no concern that the
security services are sighted as requiring a specific exemption,
which will be scrutinised through the appropriate structure.
I cannot see any reason why such an exemption
should and could apply to the police service.
4. Q: Do you have adequate resources to
tackle bribery at home and abroad?
My evidence to the "Joint Committee"
is on the work of the City of London Police's "Overseas Anti
Corruption Unit" and therefore this evidence does not widen
to considering the role of domestic corruption. Within the police
service there is a strong and accountable framework for the management
and investigation of all areas of misconduct, which includes corruption.
This role is conducted by force "Professional Standards Departments"
and is considered to be a key priority for these dedicated units.
Complaints against police or concerns over misconduct are also
investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission,
whom also oversee specific force led investigations. I recommend
that if further information is required in this area then a view
should be taken from ACPO in relation to the "Professional
Standards" dimension.
The police service, across the UK, also investigates
allegations of corruption, within all areas of society. These
investigations, depending on the scale, are investigated by the
specialist crime sections of forces and there is a wide range
of examples of such domestic corruption. Such cases are however
often concluded using alternative legislation such as "Fraud
Act", "Money Laundering", "Misconduct in a
public office".
With regards to the investigation of "Overseas
Corruption and Bribery" the Department for International
Development and the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform jointly fund the "Overseas Anti Corruption Unit"
(OACU) which is held within the City of London Police. The funding
secures a dedicated team of twelve officers who have a full time
focus on overseas corruption offences.
The OACU is however part of the City of London
Police, Economic Crime Directorate, which has the status as the
"Lead Force" for Economic Crime in England and Wales.
As such the ECD has a team of 200, including the OACU, who are
experienced and dedicated in the investigation of all areas of
Economic Crime. The OACU is therefore supported by this wider
resource and can pull upon this resource if required. The OACU,
although housed within the City of London Police, conducts this
work on behalf of all UK police forces and therefore they also
have access to the resources held within all forces, should they
be required.
The OACU work closely with the SFO in all areas
of overseas corruption and provide the SFO with the necessary
investigative experience and use of police powers and tactics
on select investigations. The OACU also conduct joint investigations
with the FSA and international law enforcement of relevant government
agencies. The OACU currently has 43 cases under investigation,
achieved the UK's first conviction for overseas corruption and
charge a further three more suspects in recent days.
To answer the question of how adequate this
resource is, this written evidence requires cross-referencing
with section 5 of this report, "The Overseas Corruption
Intelligence Assessment". The level of resource, currently
available, has been sufficient to obtain the results identified
thus far. The level of focus on this area is however significantly
increasing the level of referrals and intelligence and therefore
driving up the need for greater enforcement. There are, however,
only ever so many police officers that can investigate a specific
crime type and as such the current question is not one of resources
but of priority and it is in developing sufficient knowledge to
inform this priority process is the area where we require greater
resource. Only once we have a stronger body of knowledge about
the scale of the threat can we assess the level of resource that
will be truly required.
This is explained in section 5.
5. "The Overseas Corruption Assessment"
initiative.
During the "Joint Committee" session
on 10 June 2009, Detective Chief Superintendent Head, provided
an outline of the "Overseas Corruption and Bribery Assessment"
being conducted by the City of London Police "OACU".
There is currently no cross industry, government,
law enforcement and 3rd sector intelligence assessment relating
to Overseas Corruption. This is equally as true in other jurisdictions
as it is in the UK.
The lack of such an assessment denies the OACU
the ability to focus resources and influence change in the areas
that pose the highest level of threat. The formulation of such
an assessment is therefore vital in developing OACU's understanding,
identifying intelligence gaps and implementing intelligence, prevention
and enforcement initiatives.
The recent revelations of high value, worldwide
corruption illustrates how widespread and damaging corruption
can be. The reliance on whistle-blowers to reveal this corruption
illustrates the fact that law enforcement agencies around the
world are struggling to identify where corruption is taking place
and to successfully prosecute offending individuals and companies.
It is widely recognised that there is a clear
case for a very strong fight against bribery and corruption. Bribery
and corruption increase poverty in developing nations and significantly
distort markets punishing "clean" companies, their shareholders
and employees.
The OACU has identified a number of immediate
priorities to help it develop its work. The first of these is
to develop a detailed map of where corruption takes place and
where most harm is caused (at present no mapping of this type
exists). The aim of this document is to set out how this mapping
exercise can take place and also to identify the actions needed
to ensure that this new "intelligence assessment" can
be regularly updated and maintained.
The current lack of such an assessment denies
law enforcement agencies the ability to focus resources and influence
change in the areas that pose the highest level of harm. The formulation
of such an assessment is therefore vital in developing a detailed
understanding of practices on the ground, identifying intelligence
gaps and implementing intelligence, prevention and enforcement
initiatives.
The aim is to develop this intelligence assessment
by combining expertise from the private sector, law enforcement
agencies, governments and third sector organisations. The initial
project is scheduled to run from 1 June 2009 for six
months.
To achieve this the OACU appreciates that the
police perspective on this issue alone will not reach the desired
outcome. We have therefore sourced specialists with experience
of government, business, economics and overseas security to bring
together the necessary skills and knowledge to achieve the projects
aims. The required skill set does not exist within the police
service and therefore key individuals have been identified to
join the team.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the project are as follows:
— To pull together practitioners from the
private sector, law enforcement agencies, governments and the
third sector to work
— To develop a detailed mapping of where
corruption is taking place, in which jurisdictions
— Assess what corruption means looks like
in each sector, involving which type of public bodies and public
representatives, involving which type of private sector companies
and individuals and of what type.
— To produce a report of the findings of
the mapping which will become the benchmark worldwide for mapping
corruption
— To develop a mechanism whereby this report
can be enhanced (or combined with) and developed by law enforcement
bodies working in other jurisdictions
— To develop a mechanism whereby the report
can be continuously updated and improved
— To develop a report that provides solid
intelligence for the OACU and other law enforcement bodies so
that it can investigate further and prosecute successfully
— To enhance the reputation of the UK in
taking a lead in combating corruption worldwide
— To help the UK government and other governments
to identify the areas that are causing greatest harm and put pressure
on local politicians and agencies to stamp out public sector complicity
in corruption
— To encourage and strengthen cross-sector
working in the private sector to promote and support the success
of anti-corruption initiatives
This submission has focused on the areas where
written evidence has been requested however more detailed information
is available if required.
June 2009
| 
