Rahman Ravelli
Rahman Ravelli Solicitors Logo
Call Our 24hr Rapid Response Team: 0800 559 3500  Request a Callback
Our Services Sectors International About Us Legal Articles News Contact Us
24hr Rapid Response: 0800 559 3500
24hr Rapid Response: 0800 559 3500
 

/ Legal Articles / The Guralp Systems DPA

The Guralp Systems DPA



Syedur Rahman of Rahman Ravelli outlines the DPA that was concluded with Guralp Systems and announced shortly after three senior figures at the company – including one he successfully represented – were acquitted.

Three senior figures at British seismic equipment company Guralp Systems Ltd (GSL) were cleared of conspiracy to make corrupt payments - minutes before it was announced the firm had concluded a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA).

A jury at London’s Southwark Crown Court acquitted GSL founder Cansun Guralp, sales head Natalie Pearce and former finance director Andrew Bell of conspiracy to make corrupt payments between 2002 and 2015 in order to secure contracts for the company. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) then made public the DPA the firm had agreed with it two months earlier.

The chain of events began when the company’s new chairman became suspicious about payments to Heon-Cheol Chi, who was employed at the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources. The chairman notified the SFO and the US Department of Justice. 

Chi was convicted in the US of laundering bribes through the US banking system in 2017. The SFO charged the three GSL defendants in 2018. In reaching a DPA with the SFO, the company had accepted charges of conspiracy to make corrupt payments and failure to prevent bribery and had agreed to pay £2M for disgorgement of profits and to improve its internal controls.

This DPA was the first in the UK where the final approval hearing was heard in private rather than public and the first where the company paid no financial penalty at all, only a disgorgement. While GSL has agreed to pay the disgorgement of profit, no timetable was set for payment. There is only reference to the fact that the disgorgement will be paid by the fifth anniversary of the date of the agreement – and the terms of this DPA allow for this to be amended if GSL cannot meet the repayments. 

But while the GSL DPA has some unique features, questions have been asked about whether the acquittal of the individuals, in this case, undermines the idea that there is an incentive for companies to self-report.

This article was also featured on Lexology.com.

Syedur Rahman

Syedur Rahman

Legal Director

syedur.rahman@rahmanravelli.co.uk
+44 (0)203 910 4566 vCard

Specialist Areas of Practice: Fraud and Business Crime, Compliance and Regulatory, Civil Recovery, Civil Fraud, Corporate Investigations

View Author Profile

London Office: +44 (0)203 947 1539
Midlands Office: +44 (0)121 231 7025
Northern Office: +44 (0)1422 346 666
24hr Rapid Response: 0800 559 3500


Need Help or Advice?

Share this article on