International firm Dechert has criticised the Serious Fraud Office for allegedly attempting ‘to get off scot-free’ for its ‘causative role’ in an investigation of mining giant Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC). It was responding to a High Court claim by ENRC that it incurred costs of some £21m due to a ‘breach of duty induced by the Serious Fraud Office’ by Dechert’s former head of white-collar crime, Neil Gerrard. 

The hearing is the second stage of a legal battle between ENRC, Dechert, Gerrard and the SFO. Mr Justice Waksman will determine what damages, if any, are payable to ENRC as a result of wrongdoing found during the first phase trial last year.

Last spring, the High Court allowed part of ENRC’s claims against Dechert and Gerrard in relation to the SFO’s investigation into allegations of bribery and corruption. 

In the first trial judgment, Waksman found Gerrard had leaked ENRC’s confidential information to the press and SFO in order to expand his investigation into bribery and corruption allegations. He also found Gerrard had ‘engaged’ with former SFO director Richard Alderman without authority.

ENRC is seeking damages for fees and costs incurred as a result of ‘unnecessary work’ carried out in its investigations to ‘satisfy the SFO’.

Dechert claims it was liable for almost £9m, and paid the £8,932,473.34 to ENRC last month. For Dechert, Richard Millett KC told the court, the SFO should be liable for 50% of any payment due. 

Millett said: ‘Dechert wishes your lordship to come to an answer that is principled and correct. We want to pay the right amount that is due. ENRC says what it would have done had it been given sensible legal advice. It does not tell you what [that] sensible advice would have led to as a result. That is the problem with the ENRC’s case, it is not a boundary, it is a big fuzzy line, it is an area.'

He told the court: 'The SFO is just as much to blame as we were. If the SFO is liable for the same damage, then it cannot sensibly suggest the SFO breach had no causative role to play. The relationship between Mr Gerrard and the SFO was symbiotic. Their actions were two sides of the same coin, without SFO participation there would be no breach by Mr Gerrard. Mr Gerrard could not have played to an empty house.'

He added: ‘[We] are throwing SFO a reasonable lifeline, a 50/50 split is reasonable. The SFO has just doubled down. It says wrongful conduct is irrelevant and it should get off scot-free. We say it is unreal and sets a dangerous precedent.’

The hearing continues.