ACCT 3307 · Criminal Investigation · Working with Police, SFO, NCA, CPS

Led by Felix Aubrey Sharpley Simulacrum

1. Module 7 ○ Open

   Criminal Investigation · Working with Police, SFO, NCA, CPS

   Led by Felix Aubrey Sharpley Simulacrum

   The question

   Forensic work in criminal investigations and the UK criminal-justice architecture. The module covers the institutional framework (police economic-crime units, the Serious Fraud Office, HMRC Fraud Investigation Service, FCA enforcement, the National Crime Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service), the procedural rules (PACE 1984, the Criminal Procedure Rules, the CPIA disclosure regime), the substantive offences (Fraud Act 2006, Bribery Act 2010), the Deferred Prosecution Agreement framework, and confiscation orders under POCA. The closing scenario supports an SFO procurement-fraud investigation.

   Outcome

   The student can articulate the UK criminal-investigation architecture; can identify which agency leads which case type; can identify the differences between civil and criminal expert work; and can frame an expert engagement supporting a criminal prosecution. (Criminal investigation forensic work)

   Begin the course → Mark module complete Print certificate of completion

   Practice scenarios

   Supporting an SFO Investigation into Procurement Fraud

   You support an SFO investigation into £4m of procurement-director kickbacks at a UK government-services contractor, planning the analytical work across full-population contract review, supplier-margin analysis, bank-statement analysis, and chronology building. The work tests whether you can frame the work plan defensibly to an SFO investigator pressing for an accelerated timeline and definitive findings before the analysis supports them.

   Your goals

   • Frame the analytical work plan: (1) full-population review of contracts awarded by the procurement director's office over 5 years; (2) supplier-by-supplier margin analysis (kickback-receiving suppliers should show higher margins than peer suppliers, since the kickback is funded from the inflated contract price); (3) bank-statement analysis on the procurement director's accounts (and family-member accounts identified through electoral roll, Companies House, social-media due diligence); (4) communications review (email, messaging where preserved); (5) chronology building each contract decision against the suspicious-payment pattern.
   • Address PACE compliance: any interview the firm conducts under SFO direction is governed by SFO procedures (which include caution-equivalent for s2-compelled interviews); the firm should not interview suspects directly without SFO instruction.
   • Frame the disclosure obligations: under CPIA the prosecution must disclose unused material; the firm's working papers and analytical files must be preserved in a way that permits later disclosure; everything documented contemporaneously.
   • Address the firm's *dual role* risk: instructed by SFO but conducting work that may also be needed if the company faces civil-recovery action; clear scoping in engagement letter; preserve professional independence.
   • Identify the likely outcome scenarios: (1) charging of individuals (procurement director plus suppliers); (2) corporate DPA (the company self-reported and cooperated; likely DPA-eligible); (3) confiscation order against individuals based on criminal benefit calculated by the firm.
   • Frame as a 1,500-word work-plan memo to the SFO investigator.

   Practise this scenario →