WMVsw5Hk
type: Answer
type: WrittenAnswer
answer has question: FQTK819p
answer has answering person: 2FHDd6DL
answer text: Akin Gump were not engaged by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) during its investigation of Mr Dahdaleh or at any other time. The role of Akin Gump was limited to providing the SFO with material they held on behalf of their client, Aluminium Bahrain (Alba), in accordance with the SFO's requests. It follows from this that nothing was paid by the SFO to Akin Gump. The full cost of the investigation and prosecution is not yet known as the case has not yet concluded. In any case, it is not possible to break down the costs relating to specific individuals. The trial judge directed the jury to return verdicts of ‘not guilty’ on all counts because the prosecution offered no evidence. They did so for two reasons: firstly, because a conspirator who had pleaded guilty and agreed to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution significantly changed his evidence and, secondly, because the two partners from Akin Gump had refused to attend the trial to give evidence and face cross-examination without preconditions. While this is obviously a disappointing result, it should be noted that the case has already resulted in the successful conviction of Mr Dahdaleh's co-accused, Bruce Hall, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt.
answer given date: 2013-12-16+00:00
answer has answering body: P8FS4eb5
written answer has answering body: P8FS4eb5