Figures simply launched present that the SFO is rising its use of raids in legal investigations. Aziz Rahman, of enterprise crime solicitors Rahman Ravelli, explains how and why such raids ought to be challenged.

The variety of raids carried out by the Critical Fraud Workplace (SFO) to collect proof for legal investigations greater than tripled up to now 12 months.

The SFO carried out 30 raids within the final monetary 12 months, in comparison with simply 9 the earlier 12 months. This determine is the very best for six years. These statistics may very well be seen as an indicator of a extra “in your face’’ SFO – an organisation that’s more and more on the entrance foot in relation to investigating white-collar crime.

Whether or not the September arrival of Lisa Osofsky, a former United States prosecutor, as the brand new SFO Director will imply the present price of raids being maintained stays to be seen. That may rely as a lot on the character of the circumstances that make their method to the SFO as it should on Ms Osofky’s private method to the function of the organisation she is taking on. Whereas the upper raid figures may very well be proof of a extra aggressive SFO, it may simply be that the caseload at the moment required extra raids than in recent times.

It might, subsequently, be untimely to learn an excessive amount of into the elevated variety of raids. Perhaps if the figures keep excessive – or go even larger – within the subsequent few years, we will say with certainty that the SFO is more and more eager to raid these it suspects of wrongdoing.

For now, nonetheless, the one actual certainty is that the SFO is presently finishing up extra raids as a part of its legal investigations than it has for a variety of years. And that makes it much more necessary that any particular person or organisation that’s the topic of 1 is aware of learn how to reply.


The incorrect response to an SFO raid will be damaging to anybody who comes underneath investigation. What should even be remembered, nonetheless, is thought-about, clever response to a raid can go a protracted method to stopping an SFO investigation – or at the very least guaranteeing there are many grounds for difficult the SFO’s assumptions, allegations and actions if and when a case goes to trial.

A raid is a vital early stage of an investigation. The fitting response can actually minimise the injury to the topic of 1. Such a response entails realizing your authorized choices when a raid is carried out in order that the company finishing up the raid – whether or not or not it’s the SFO or different organisation – doesn’t exceed its powers.

Primary checks on whether or not there may be authorized authority for the raid and precisely what sort of raid will be carried out should be made. Additionally, are these people seeking to perform the raid named on the suitable paperwork? Can they show their identification? Is the mandate for the raid for the best time period? These checks could not, on their very own, appear such a serious step. However they’ll stop any abuse of procedures.

An identical, cautious method is critical as soon as a raid begins. Anybody who’s raided must make copies of any paperwork taken and take notes of any discussions between them and people conducting the raid. These finishing up the raid should even be adopted in order that they don’t take something they don’t seem to be allowed to and don’t learn something which may be coated by authorized privilege.


Investigating authorities should apply for a warrant to raid a premises. Most are issued underneath the Police and Prison Proof Act 1984 (PACE). Guidelines have to be adopted relating to the applying for a search warrant and the conduct of the raid: if they don’t seem to be adopted, the search and the warrant may very well be quashed and any property that has been seized could also be ordered to be returned. If a defence workforce can discover a breach of any of the foundations, it may problem the legality of the warrant, the raid and any ensuing prosecution that an investigating authority brings.

An instance of this was Chatwani and others V the Nationwide Crime Company [2015]. The NCA had obtained search warrants for ten defendants and their firms as a part of a cash laundering investigation. However the case ended with the NCA having to just accept that its raids have been illegal and the courtroom ordering that it couldn’t maintain any materials seized within the raid or any copies of it that had been made. This was as a result of the defendants’ attorneys argued efficiently that the NCA had not disclosed all related issues to the courtroom when making use of for search warrants, had not specified what it was trying to find when making use of for the warrants, had exceeded the warrants’ scope by seizing private possessions and had not disclosed that it meant to plant listening units through the raid.

As a case, it reveals the significance for the authorities of following the letter of the legislation in all elements of the planning and execution of a raid. This was additionally demonstrated in R (Cook dinner) v Critical Organised Crime Company [2011], when warrants have been issued and searches carried out however schedules to the warrant weren’t left on the searched premises, as required. The end result was the seizure of the objects being dominated illegal and SOCA having to pay damages and sure authorized prices. This case additionally established that illegal seizure couldn’t be rendered lawful by any subsequent re-seizure.


It should even be famous that the SFO has had authorized issues of its personal arising from a failure to plan and conduct a raid in accordance with the legislation.

In 2011, the Tchenguiz brothers, Vincent and Robert, have been each raided by the SFO in relation to suspected misconduct relating to the collapse of an Icelandic financial institution. However the SFO ended up reaching expensive monetary settlements with every brother after it was proven to have over-emphasised sure elements of the case whereas making use of for the search warrants. The SFO had failed to supply all related materials, made at the very least one severe factual omission and demonstrated what the courtroom heard was a “lack of know-how’’ of the brothers’ dealings.

However such findings have been solely made after the brothers challenged the conduct of the SFO. Any such problem requires a cautious examination of the authorized arguments put ahead by the SFO – or another company – when it seeks a warrant for a raid and its subsequent conduct through the raid.


The legislation makes provision for authorized challenges to be made to any company’s actions in relation to a raid.

Part 21 of PACE offers individuals sure rights of entry to their materials that has been seized. Whereas officers concerned in raids could consider they’ll take what they need and maintain it indefinitely, this isn’t the case. The Supplementary Lawyer Normal’s Steering -The Steering on Disclosure of Digitally Saved Materials (July 2011) units out limits relating to what these finishing up the raid can do with digitally-stored materials.

There’s scope for a defence workforce to carry to account anybody concerned in a raid who exceeds their powers. The excellent scheduling of all seized materials, the swift return of computer systems and no unauthorised copying of fabric – corresponding to materials coated by authorized privilege – are issues that may be scrutinised by the defence for any errors on behalf of the raiding company. And this could all be executed earlier than any additional challenges are mounted relating to points such because the reliability of proof or the validity of the arguments and assumptions that the prosecution are counting on.

You will need to do not forget that though raids are by no means nice and could also be of nice use to investigating businesses such because the SFO, they’ll current alternatives for a defence workforce to cease an investigation in its tracks if errors have been made by the authorities.

Not each error will result in a search warrant being quashed. However challenges are, in our opinion and expertise, typically worthwhile – and a powerful, early probability to halt an investigation.