New investigations and important developments in older cases, together with continuing commitments to engage with co-operating corporates and individuals, demonstrate a robust yet pragmatic stance.

The SFO's current enforcement stance: An overview

The UK Serious Fraud Office's ("SFO") busy start to 2026 underlines that it remains first and foremost, but not exclusively, a prosecutor. One new investigation may prove to be the most substantial of the current (and soon to depart) Director's tenure. It has successfully defended its ability to re-commence criminal proceedings against a UK based company for breaches of a deferred prosecution agreement ("DPA"). An investigation commenced in 2023 has led to charges against two individuals.

The current Director's tenure has been a period of renewal and consolidation. It has not seen the commencement or conclusion of headline grabbing "blockbuster" cases similar to those overseen by his predecessors. There have not yet been substantial increases in numbers of cases started or the pace of most investigations. Cases taken forward suggest a wish to demonstrate the agency's credentials as a strong specialist enforcement authority.

Relatively static levels of publicised enforcement activity do not indicate a lack of industry. The Director and others have repeatedly indicated that the SFO is actively looking for its first case concerning the new corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud or the important changes to the law on corporate criminal liability under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 which have already happened. Substantial effort has been invested in advocating for changes to whistleblower incentivisation arrangements. Further substantial proposed changes to the law on corporate criminal liability are proceeding through Parliament. Depending on the approach taken by the new Director, these factors may, in time, boost numbers of cases.  

The SFO continues periodically to remind corporates that it is receptive to self-reports. Refreshed guidance has clarified some points. However, for the time being at least, there remain relatively few reference points for corporates weighing the possible benefits and risks of engagement with a view to reaching a negotiated settlement.

Oblique suggestions that the SFO may play a more active role in helping corporates proactively to prevent misconduct in the first place through dialogue concerning their compliance programmes have not yet been followed up with details of how such arrangements could work in practice.

Analysis: Key developments and themes to watch in 2026

1. Some doubts remain about the benefits of self-reporting

Numbers of DPAs concluded are significantly lower than was expected when they were introduced in 2014. No new agreements have been concluded since December 2023. When they were introduced in 2014, corporates may initially have expected a steady flow of DPAs, but a trickle (only 13 in total) has followed. In several significant cases, courts sentencing companies prosecuted by the SFO have made significant downward adjustments at various stages of the penalty calculation process. As such, there is often not universal consensus at board level that self-reporting and providing ongoing cooperation with a view to a potential DPA will be the most advantageous course of action.

The SFO's revised Corporate Co-operation Guidance published in April 2025 sought to address longstanding uncertainty about whether self-reporting will necessarily lead to a DPA. It gave a clear assurance that DPA negotiations will follow prompt self-reporting "unless exceptional circumstances apply". For detailed analysis of this and other aspects of the guidance, see our RIFC Insights blog post. The outgoing Director reinforced this point during a discussion at our Clifford Chance Perspectives event last year, describing himself as "a man to do business with".

That revised guidance also contained indicative and non-binding targets the SFO to (1) make decisions about whether investigations are to be commenced based upon self-reports within six months and (2) to complete DPA negotiations within six months of an invitation being extended. As the anniversary of its release approaches, it will become clearer if the SFO's attempts to reassure corporates contemplating self-reporting will translate into greater numbers of negotiated outcomes.

2. A deal is a deal – SFO expects parties to DPAs to adhere to terms

The High Court has cleared the way for the SFO to enforce the DPA agreed with Guralp Systems Limited ("GSL") and approved by Southwark Crown Court in 2019, under which sums in excess of £2 million remain outstanding. GSL had resisted the SFO's attempts to do so, arguing that the agreement was no longer in force as at the date on which the SFO commenced breach proceedings.

The High Court had no difficulty concluding that non-payment by GSL meant that the DPA was still in force even after the end of its five year term (during which time the SFO had unsuccessfully attempted to prosecute three of GSL's former senior executives). The Court emphasised that a DPA is not a commercial contract, but is rather an agreement arising from statutory provisions that is designed to operate in the public interest. It found that the objective intention of the parties was for the DPA to remain in force after the end of the five year term if sums required to be paid remained outstanding.

Breach proceedings will now continue before Southwark Crown Court. If it finds that GSL has breached the terms of the DPA, it could invite the SFO and GSL to agree proposals to remedy the breach. It seems more likely though that the DPA will be terminated, which would lead to the re-commencement of criminal proceedings against GSL.

This is the first publicised case in which the SFO has pursued breach proceedings against a party to a DPA. In all other cases, the corporates concerned have avoided the prospect of criminal proceedings being re-commenced by complying with the various financial and other requirements of those agreements to the SFO's (and the Court's) satisfaction. Breach proceedings are expected to remain an option of last resort, and it is not likely that they will frequently be pursued. However, the SFO has invested significant resources in demonstrating to parties with which it agrees DPAs that it expects ongoing cooperation and adherence to the terms of those agreements.

3. New investigations and charges suggest careful case selection and collaboration with other enforcement authorities

Two new investigations and one new prosecution around the turn of the year suggest that the SFO is seeking to demonstrate that it is not averse to taking on increasingly complex and sensitive matters in which other agencies have (or have had) an interest. For now at least, tackling alleged fraud and bribery that has principally occurred in or affected individuals located in the UK, appears to take precedence over cross-border cases.

• Safe Hands Plans Limited – 22 January 2026 – Charges have been brought against two individuals based on their alleged roles in Safe Hands Plans Limited ("SHP"), a prepaid funeral plan provider that ceased trading in 2022 (and its holding company). The SFO's press release indicates that approximately 46,000 people had bought plans at that point. The FCA has previously indicated that it does not agree with a finding by the Complaints Commissioner that it did not identify significant risks in relation to SHP in 2021 (prior to it assuming responsibility for the regulation of funeral plan providers from July 2022). The SFO has been investigating since October 2023.
  
• Home REIT – New investigation announced 13 January 2026 – This investigation concerning alleged fraud and bribery by members of the past management of Home REIT plc, a social housing company that specialised in providing homes for homeless and vulnerable people is potentially the most significant by value to be launched during the current Director's tenure. The estimated value of the suspected offending is £300 million. Other UK enforcement authorities have already commenced investigations relating to the activities of the company. The FCA is already investigating examining the circumstances leading to the suspension of the company's shares from trading in January 2023. The Charity Commission is carrying out statutory inquiries concerning alleged conflicts of interest within a number of the company's main charity tenants. The Financial Reporting Council is examining the company's audit for FY 2021. Overlapping remits and factual complexities could test the SFO's stated objective of lowering the current average time taken between the opening of investigations and charging decisions, which stands at 4.3 years.
  
• Basis Markets – New investigation announced 20 November 2025 - The SFO's first publicised foray into investigating crypto-related fraud is progressing. It concerns alleged fraud and money laundering in connection with the collapse of a USD 28 million "crypto hedge fund" investment scheme in 2022. 

Separately, the SFO has secured convictions for fraudulent trading for three former directors of Ethical Forestry Limited (who were charged in July 2023 following an investigation that had been ongoing since March 2017).

In our previous RIFC Insights blog post covering some of the SFO's new cases last year, we identified some areas to watch as it seeks to put its proposed approach into action. Its latest new investigations and proceedings could provide further opportunities for the SFO to clarify key concepts, make use of some new provisions on corporate criminal liability and bring about accelerated progress in investigations and proceedings

4. Director continues to advocate for US style financial incentives for whistleblowers in fraud and bribery cases

Senior figures within the SFO have vocally advocated for the introduction of whistleblower incentivisation arrangements similar to those available to US enforcement authorities. The UK Government has now acknowledged these calls for change. Its Anti-Corruption Strategy, published in December 2025 contains a commitment to exploring the viability of these changes. As noted in our RIFC Insights blog post last month, HM Revenue & Customs' recently  Strengthened Reward Scheme may provide a template for how such a scheme could operate in the UK.