RE: UAE revenue16 Mar 2021 00:18
NIce post CSD, and in whole I do agree with you. With regards to the SFO, I understand the point you're making, but there's a fine line with making a legitimate case and making it look like a vendetta. The situation now could possibly be argued that if the SFO have not accused and levied any charges against PFC directly, but only those who were ex-employees, for what reason are they still holding onto our tail.
Furthermore it could also be said that the company itself could make a case against the SFO for unnecessarily tainting the company by dragging it through the mud when it itself has not been charged and leading to the loss of contracts. Tbh, I may be talking out of my rear end, as if anything, law is not my strongest subject.
Either-way the SFO main aim is to bring to justice those who have committed fraud with or within a business and if those parties have been accused and charged accordingly, build a case and prosecute. As an engineer, (myself), we work within tolerances, whether it be in design or materials and by that law, we know our limits. I'm sure that the SFO must also work within some set tolerances of what, which and how much they can push any given case without directly affecting the overall enterprise, (Petrofac), itself...Especially if that said enterprise has had no charges brought upon it.