Smith and Ouzman Ltd convicted of corruption over Kenya and Mauritania contracts (2014)
- Agency
- Serious Fraud Office 1
- Offence
- Corruptly agreeing to make payments, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 1,4
- Company sentence
- Fine £1,316,799, confiscation £881,158 and costs £25,000, reported as about £2.2 million, on 8 January 2016 3
- Individual sentences
- Christopher John Smith: 18 months suspended for two years. Nicholas Charles Smith: three years' imprisonment 2,3
- Acquittals
- Timothy Hamilton Forrester acquitted on all counts. Abdirahman Mohamed Omar acquitted on one count relating to Somaliland 1
The verdicts
The SFO said Smith and Ouzman Ltd was convicted of three counts of corruptly agreeing to make payments, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 1. Chairman Christopher John Smith was convicted on two counts and sales and marketing director Nicholas Charles Smith on three counts 1.
International sales manager Timothy Hamilton Forrester was acquitted on all three counts 1. Sales agent Abdirahman Mohamed Omar was acquitted of one count relating to a contract in Somaliland 1. The SFO said the convicted defendants and two others were acquitted of charges relating to Ghana and Somaliland 2.
SFO Director David Green said it was the SFO's first conviction, after trial, of a corporate for offences involving bribery of foreign public officials 1.
Conduct described by the SFO
The SFO said corrupt payments totalling £395,074 were made to public officials to win business contracts in Kenya and Mauritania between 1 November 2006 and 31 December 2010 1,2. It described the company as a specialist in security documents such as ballot papers and education certificates 2.
The SFO said agents for Kenya, Ghana or Mauritania, and officials at organisations in those countries and Somaliland, were named on the indictment as agreeing to make payments but were not charged 2. The SFO releases do not name the public bodies that awarded the contracts and do not say which products the contracts covered 1,2 3.
Sentences
On 12 February 2015 HHJ Higgins sentenced Christopher John Smith to 18 months' imprisonment suspended for two years, with 250 hours of unpaid work and a three-month curfew 2. Nicholas Charles Smith was sentenced to three years' imprisonment 2. Both were disqualified from acting as company directors for six years 2. The judge described the conduct as "cynical, deplorable and deeply antisocial, suggesting moral turpitude" 2.
On 8 January 2016 the SFO said Recorder Andrew Mitchell QC sentenced the company at Southwark Crown Court 3. The SFO release lists confiscation and costs orders against the two men 3.
| Defendant | Order | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Smith and Ouzman Ltd | Fine, in six-monthly instalments 3 | £1,316,799 3 |
| Smith and Ouzman Ltd | Confiscation, within 28 days 3 | £881,158 3 |
| Smith and Ouzman Ltd | Costs, within six months 3 | £25,000 3 |
| Christopher John Smith | Confiscation and costs 3 | £4,500 and £75,000 3 |
| Nicholas Charles Smith | Confiscation and costs 3 | £18,693 and £75,000 3 |
Timeline and legal basis
The offences predate the Bribery Act 2010. Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 was repealed by the Bribery Act 2010 with effect from 1 July 2011 4.
- October 2010: SFO accepts the case for investigation 1,2
- 30 August 2013: the company and four individuals are charged 2
- 23 October 2013: first appearance at Westminster Magistrates' Court 2
- 10 November 2014: trial begins before HHJ Higgins 1
- 22 December 2014: verdicts 1,2
- 12 February 2015: the two men are sentenced 2
- 8 January 2016: the company is sentenced 3
Common questions
Was Smith and Ouzman convicted?
Yes. A jury convicted the company of three counts under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 on 22 December 2014 1.
How much did the company pay?
A fine of £1,316,799, confiscation of £881,158 and costs of £25,000, about £2.2 million 3.
Did anyone go to prison?
Nicholas Charles Smith received three years' imprisonment. Christopher John Smith received a suspended sentence 2.
Did the case involve election contracts?
The SFO releases describe the company as a printer of ballot papers and certificates but do not say which products the corrupt contracts covered 1,2.
Rules and fees change. Check the official site linked above before you apply or pay. Spotted an error? Email [email protected] with the official link.
Sources
- Serious Fraud Office: UK printing company and two men found guilty in corruption trial (22 December 2014)
- Serious Fraud Office: Two men sentenced following corruption trial (12 February 2015)
- Serious Fraud Office: Convicted printing company sentenced and ordered to pay £2.2 million (8 January 2016)
- legislation.gov.uk: Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, section 1 (repealed)
Related
- UK deferred prosecution agreements explained
How DPAs work in England and Wales under Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013: who can enter one, court approval, terms, breach and admissions.
- Plea agreements and settlements compared
The difference between a guilty plea, a deferred prosecution agreement and a civil settlement in U.S. cases, with Rule 11 and Justice Manual rules.
- Petrofac Limited guilty pleas and sentence for failing to prevent bribery (2021)
Petrofac Limited pleaded guilty in October 2021 to seven counts of failing to prevent bribery and was ordered to pay about £77 million.
- Standard Bank deferred prosecution agreement (UK, 2015)
The UK's first DPA: Standard Bank plc and the SFO, approved 30 November 2015 over a Tanzania sovereign note deal. Terms, amounts, SEC case and outcome.