§ 28. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East)When he last met the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss the failure rate of prosecutions in fraud cases. [87907]
§ The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston)The Attorney-General and I meet the Director of the Serious Fraud Office on a regular basis to discuss the operational work of the office, and on an ad hoc basis as issues require. In the past 12 months, the Serious Fraud Office has brought 19 cases against 39 defendants, of whom 32 were convicted. The overall conviction rate in each year since 1996–97 has been in excess of 80 per cent.
§ Dr. IddonHas my hon. and learned Friend expressed to his colleagues the dissatisfaction of the general public at the fact that millions of pounds have gone down the drain as a result of the failure of several high profile serious fraud cases? Does he believe that people should benefit from serious fraud? I am minded to ask that question because of the case of Nick Leeson, who collapsed a bank, spent only six years in jail, and will apparently benefit to the tune of at least £100,000. Will my hon. and learned Friend condemn the media, as in assisting him to do that they are encouraging people to commit serious fraud?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralAs I said, the Serious Fraud Office has a very good record. It was not involved in the case of Nick Leeson because he was prosecuted in Singapore. If my hon. Friend is asking me whether people should profit from doing wrong, my reply is that as a general principle they should not. My hon. Friend may know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has taken proceedings against George Blake, who profited from writing his memoirs about spying against the country. I understand that the Press Complaints Commission can take up the matter; that may be appropriate.
§ Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)The Minister may be aware that an all-party group of right hon. and hon. Members was invited to visit the stock exchange yesterday and heard a detailed explanation of the regulatory regime, particularly in respect of insider trading and other offences that may come to light there. We were told that in the past two years 70 such offences, or suspected offences, had been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the fraud squad, but that no 430 successful prosecutions had followed. Is that considered an acceptable outcome, when white collar fraud clearly has the capacity to produce great dividends for those who practise it and is often seen as being victimless?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI am not aware of the particular statistics to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly look into the problem. Insider dealing is a difficult offence to prosecute as it is particularly difficult to obtain evidence. Under the new regime in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the regulatory authorities will be able to take disciplinary action, but at the end of the day serious cases have to be pursued. I shall certainly look at the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)When the Financial Services Authority is given the power under the Financial Services and Markets Bill to prosecute fraud cases alongside the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, how will that affect the responsibilities of the Law Officers in this place?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe Serious Fraud Office will continue to prosecute the most serious fraud and cases will be referred to it by the regulatory authorities. Of course, under the new regime more cases should be pursued as a result of the activities of the Financial Services Authority. So as a result of the Bill, a more efficient regime will be in place.