Tag: Serious Fraud Office

The press release issued by the Serious Fraud Office on 8 January 2026.

Nine fraud victims to be compensated 24 years after the crime following innovative SFO technique.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has successfully recovered more than £400,000 to be returned to nine fraud victims almost twenty-four years after they were defrauded.

Investigators used civil recovery action to reclaim funds for victims of a fraud committed in 2002. As there has been no conviction, these funds would normally go to HM Treasury.

The recovery relates to money stolen by Abdullah Ali Jammal, a former director of a retail-depositor bank, who operated an email fraud scheme from the UK between 2001 and 2002, securing over £4.4 million. Victims were told that their help was needed to release money from countries including Nigeria, with the promise of a 10-25% commission in return. This advanced fee scheme defrauded eighteen people, many of whom lost tens of thousands of pounds.

In 2021, having determined that Mr Jammal – who fled the country before being charged – could not realistically be convicted, the SFO decided that the case’s unique circumstances merited an alternative approach to recovering money for victims. Mr Jammal’s accounts were frozen, including over £150,000 bound for the family-controlled Jammal Trust Bank in Lebanon, which remains sanctioned by the US for facilitating banking for a terrorist organisation.

Investigators then spoke directly to victims around the world, working with the Australian Federal Police, Belgian Police, French Liaison Magistrate, US’s Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to locate them and secure their consent for this action.

This demonstrates a new approach to civil recovery proceedings, with funds being returned directly to victims rather than the Treasury – a significant development in how proceeds of crime can be recovered. The SFO will now seek to use this technique across other relevant cases.

Nick Ephgrave QPM, Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), said:

Fraud devastates lives and the SFO will pursue justice for victims using every tool at our disposal.

This groundbreaking case demonstrates that determination. After years of complex international investigation, we’re returning stolen money directly to the people who were defrauded.

Solicitor General Ellie Reeves MP, said:

Fraud is a devastating crime. It hurts people, impacts businesses and damages the UK’s reputation as a trusted place to do business.

This government is determined to tackle fraud and disrupt the perpetrators. The SFO has successfully secured thousands of pounds, going directly back to the victims. This demonstrates their innovative approach to recovering illicit gains, working with international partners, and relentless commitment to delivering justice.

The press release issued by the Serious Fraud Office on 23 July 2025.

A statement by the Serious Fraud Office on R v Hayes and R v Palombo.

The Serious Fraud Office investigates and prosecutes the most complex fraud, bribery and corruption cases affecting the UK and the safety of our economy.

Today’s Supreme Court decision comes thirteen years after we first investigated the practice used by some traders and submitters at selected banks to influence key benchmark rates of interest in financial markets.

These rates were called the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) and the Euro Inter-bank Offered Rate (“EURIBOR”) and they affected the value of hundreds of trillions of dollars’ worth of financial products around the world, including ordinary people’s pensions, mortgages and savings.

Our investigation led to nine convictions of senior bankers for fraud offences, with two of these individuals pleading guilty and seven found guilty by juries.

This judgment has determined that the legal directions given by the judge to the jury at the conclusion of trial were incorrect in Hayes’ and Palombo’s trials and for that reason their convictions have today been found unsafe.

We have considered this judgment and the full circumstances carefully and determined it would not be in the public interest for us to seek a retrial.