SFO’s future unclear as numbers fall

WELLINGTON: The future of the Serious Fraud Office is up for debate again as part of the Government’s justice sector review, ministers have confirmed.

Senior commercial and legal figures are concerned about a declining number of prosecutions launched by the office, driven by what was claimed to be a conservative, riskminimising approach under the tenure of director Julie Read.

Critics claimed many of the prosecutions the SFO had taken targeted relatively small offending, worth less than $1 million.

According to annual reports filed by the SFO over the past decade, in the five years before Ms Read’s appointment the office launched an average of 15 prosecutions every year.

In the five years since, this has dropped 40% to an average of nine.

Minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office Stuart Nash said he had been aware of such complaints.

‘‘I was approached by someone, who will remain nameless, who was concerned about the performance of the SFO, and asked me to look at the stats on prosecutions.’’

Mr Nash said he had discussed the matter with Ms Read, and was satisfied with her explanation that ‘‘cases are bubbling away, and the level of investigations taking place are about the same as they were before’’.

But Mr Nash emphasised the entire justice sector was under review.

The SFO was part of this, and he did not dismiss the possibility the office could be folded — as has been mooted in the past — into the Police or Financial Markets Authority.

‘‘Labour had a look at this last term. National had a look at it, too,’’ he said.

‘‘Nothing is off the table . . . but whether it’s on the table is still to be determined.’’

A possible closure of the office alarmed the Opposition. National Party spokesman for the SFO Chris Bishop signalled such a move would face chal lenge in Parliament.

‘‘The SFO does a good job and specialises in sophisticated and complex fraud. We’re opposed to folding the office into police,’’ he said.

The SFO has a set of unique powers — above those available to police — which sit uncomfortably with the Bill of Rights, including the ability to issue document production notices unable to be challenged in the courts, and demand interviews with subjects unable to claim a right to silence.

Mr Bishop noted the current discussions had parallels with the last time the SFO’s future was under discussion in 2007.

‘‘This seems to arise whenever Labour and New Zealand First govern together and we oppose it,’’ he said.

These plans were put on hold and later canned by the incoming National government after thenforeign affairs minister Winston Peters was investigated in 2008 — and later cleared — over controversy about his solicitation of donations from Sir Robert Jones and Sir Owen Glenn.

Established in 1990, the small office employs about 50 people and has an annual budget of only $9.3 million.

It is tasked with investigating and prosecuting serious or complex financial crime.

Ms Read, an Australian lawyer, has kept a relatively low profile since being appointed in 2013, and after her initial term of three years ended in 2016 was — unusually — given two shorterterm extensions.

The first was for for two years and the latest for only eight months, ending in June next year.

Ms Read said yesterday she was unwilling to say if she would seek to continue in the role, but defended her tenure.

‘‘It’s an extraordinarily good office, and I’ve seen quite a few in my time.

‘‘We’ve got great skill and great dedication to the cases that we run.

‘‘We’ve got really high success rates, which isn’t always considered good, but I’ve never seen evidence of people thinking we walk away from things we should be looking at.’’ — NZME

❛ Nothing is off the table . . . but whether it’s on the table is still to be determined