Summary

This DPA concerns three offences, each involving a contract bid. The bids for two contracts in Algeria (Counts 2 and 3) were unsuccessful, so there is no direct victim to compensate. The bid for a contract in Oman (Count 1 - the MC6 Project) was successful. That contract was partially fulfilled before being terminated by the Omani Ministry, leading to extensive arbitration proceedings and substantial awards against UEH's joint venture company, Ithra. Related proceedings in Oman remain ongoing. Given that the Omani government is already pursuing a resolution against UEH and UEL, with likely substantial awards if UEH and UEL are unsuccessful in defending the case, it would not be appropriate to seek to address compensation as part of this DPA.

It is very important that I make clear at the outset that in conducting the exercise that I have in this case, I have not heard evidence from any individual or made any findings of fact against any individual. The SFO has decided not to bring charges against any individual in connection with its investigations in this case. When I make reference to the conduct of individuals so as to explain my reasons for granting the declarations sought, that is on the understanding of what has been agreed between the parties but not by anyone else. In the first paragraph of his judgment in Director of the SFO v Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited, 1 July 2021, Edis LJ said this about the DPA process:

"the court does not make findings of fact in the present exercise. It is necessary to assess the culpability of the behaviour of a company but no process has taken place by which the culpability of individual people has been determined or assessed. Companies act through individuals, and it is necessary to consider some conduct for that reason, but the court has not heard from any individuals or called upon them for their side of the story. This judgment deals with the culpability of the company Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited (AFWEL) and not that of any individual person. That culpability is determined by reference to agreements reached between AFWEL and the SFO and documents supplied by those parties. No individual has agreed any of these facts, or supplied any document to the court about them. I make no findings of any kind against any individual, and my comments below are to be read in that context."

I respectfully adopt what Edis LJ said. May J, as she then was, made the same point in Director of the SFO v Bluu Solutions Limited [2023] EWHC 1976 (KB) at [16].