The Serious Fraud Office has revised its corporate cooperation guidance, giving company lawyers a new way to discuss suspected fraud, bribery or corruption with a senior SFO lawyer before making a formal self-report. The change is intended to make early contact clearer; it does not remove the need for a prompt disclosure or full cooperation if a company wants to be considered for a deferred prosecution agreement.
A conversation before a formal report
Under the new route, corporate legal representatives may contact the SFO’s Director of Legal Services and General Counsel directly about a potential self-report. The SFO says lawyers can use a dedicated channel before committing to a formal report. Updated guidance also allows preliminary engagement on an anonymous basis, giving advisers a chance to raise process questions without initially identifying a client.
This is an optional preliminary step, not a substitute for reporting suspected offending to the SFO. A conversation does not itself amount to a self-report, secure an outcome or prevent the agency from investigating. The guidance continues to direct corporate reports to the SFO’s Intelligence Division. Reporting to another regulator or filing a suspicious activity report alone does not count as notifying the SFO.
The change follows feedback from legal practitioners after the SFO introduced its corporate cooperation framework in April 2025. The earlier framework established a route for companies to report suspected criminal conduct and set out what the agency expects from organisations seeking credit for cooperation.
The central offer remains conditional
The SFO says a company that reports promptly and cooperates fully will, except in exceptional circumstances, be invited to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement. That is an invitation to enter negotiations, not a promise that an agreement will be reached or that a prosecution is impossible. Any agreement must meet the legal requirements and receive judicial approval.
The updated guidance retains the agency’s service commitments: it aims to make contact within 48 business hours of an initial approach, provide regular updates and decide within six months whether to open an investigation. It also says an investigation should be concluded within a reasonably prompt timeframe, which will depend on the circumstances and the cooperation received.
Companies are expected to take a proportionate, risk-based approach when identifying the extent of suspected offending. That clarification recognises that the scale and focus of an internal inquiry should reflect the risks and available information. It does not amount to permission to narrow an inquiry artificially or withhold relevant evidence. The SFO continues to expect organisations to identify known facts, preserve relevant material and provide genuine assistance.
A clearer negotiation clock
The revision also clarifies when the six-month target for concluding deferred prosecution agreement negotiations begins. The period runs from acceptance of an invitation to negotiate, rather than simply from the SFO sending the invitation. The agency describes this as an aim, not an unconditional deadline; its commitment is to conclude negotiations within six months wherever possible.
That distinction matters because the investigation and negotiation stages are separate. The guidance does not impose a six-month limit on an investigation, and it says the time needed will depend on factors including the material involved and the level of proactive cooperation.
The revised process therefore creates a new preliminary contact route while preserving the existing framework’s main conditions. A company must still decide whether and when to report, make its disclosure directly to the SFO and continue to cooperate. The agency retains discretion over the public-interest assessment in each case, and exceptional circumstances can still lead to prosecution despite self-reporting.
For businesses and their advisers, the practical change is an additional opportunity to clarify how a possible disclosure should be approached before submitting one. It does not predetermine how the SFO will assess the conduct, whether it will investigate, or how a case will ultimately be resolved.
