Member Info for worraps

The Evening Standard have changed the wording of the charges in their article. They have changed the charge to "failing to stop" as against the formal charge of "failing to prevent". In legal charge terms, and everyday meaning, the word 'stop' and 'prevent' have two different implications. Naughty Evening Standard!

Perhaps it's the David Lufkin sentence only. The schedule time is against his name?

This is today's for instance:- http://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/southwark.htm

This is today's for instance:- http://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/southwark.htm

Southwark Crown Court release the day's schedule at 10.00am each day. So, you should be able to see it listed tomorrow morning.

"Failure to prevent" fraud is in a totally different category to actually committing fraud. That, plus the encouraging appraisal of PFC by the SFO is enough to fill me with confidence that the fine will be minimal.

Petrofac and Lufkin not yet listedhttp://xhibit.justice.gov.uk/southwark.htm

The inference seems to be that Lufkin will get his sentence on Monday, but PFC have to hear their pleas heard first, both at Southwark Crown Court. And PFC will get their penalty after that. But I have no idea how long these things take. So it looks like we may have to muster a bit more patience if we don't get to hear of the PFC verdict. They've already pleaded guilty to the seven charges, so who knows. I get the feeling it's all pretty much sorted between them and the SFO. All discussed and agreed. It just needs the court's approval.

JG68, yes you're right in the sense that the statement by the SFO is only referring to the new charges and plea agreement between them and Petrofac. There are several press articles covering the whole scenario today, in which it's said that Monday will be sentencing for Lufkin, and plea hearing for PFC. So we'll see what evolves. I've read so much about it all in the last 24 hours, I'm a bit 'over read' on the subject! I was really caught out on Friday, certainly wasn't expecting an RNS mid afternoon on a Friday. I was tied up with other things at the time which was frustrating.
Let's hope Monday brings relief, satisfaction, and conclusion.

https://www.sfo.gov.uk/2021/09/24/sfo-charges-petrofac-with-failure-to-prevent-bribery-offences/

Reading the wording by the SFO, they have already accepted and agreed the pleas by PFC themselves, and David Lufkin's pleas will be heard on Monday. These procedures can drag out, so I wouldn't be surprised if it cannot be concluded on Monday.
I have to say, I think this result is the best that could possibly be achieved. And by agreeing to the charge of 'failing to prevent', PFC have been very astute, but at the same time retained their dignity.
Monday and the forthcoming days and months are going to reward us patient ones I think! And PFC deserve a pat on the back too.

lerkule, yes I agree the filter is the most apt and fitting place for Snapper10. It's just that I don't like his blatant lies and misinformation that are now becoming quite desperate and quite stupid. The fact that he resorts to changing poster's user names to something rude when he replies to a post says it all.

Snapper10....."SFO don't have anything in the Court calendar for PFC/David Lufkin Before 21 March 22"
Where is that stated anywhere? Mmmmmmm, is that a lie you have just told?

Snapper10, I wonder why you always change poster's user's names into something derogatory? As if to mock, and insult them.
If I were to stoop to your levels, it would be tempting to change your user name to Snappy10......which would be rather apt!

Snapper10 = "Collaboration agreement with no monetary value attached"
PFC= "Company is focused on building a $1bn business in the medium term"

Another shot in the foot by Snapper10! It really is getting very funny!

Snapper10, your reply to my post says it all. It's called shooting yourself in the foot. Your own words say all there is to know about your yourself as a person, and there certainly is nothing accurate in your appraisal of PFC. It is only ever in the negative perspective. Judging by your rudeness and aggressive tone, I would say I have touched a nerve with the suggestion that you need help. There is no point in communicating with you any further.

Snapper10, your posts have now become so bitter and twisted, it's become evident that you need to seek help. Sad, but please do it. Anyone who constantly dwells only on the negative and never the positive is in trouble in life.

Snapper10, your words at 13:16, " PFC are potentially exposed to between £2.5 and £1.5 billion in settling these cases successfully". What are you basing that conclusion on? They seem to be numbers that have come from an over imaginative mind.

Snapper10, yes a dangerous country. But have you also read the support that the UK government give to companies such as PFC? It puts some perspective back into your outlook and view.
https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/department-for-international-trade-libya

Snapper10, as requested, I won't say it's old news. I'll say instead that it's VERY old news! But thanks anyway.

But it can also be read and construed that there are no further impending charges for any member of staff in the SFO proceedings. Otherwise Alfonso would definitely not have been given this position.