Akin Gump slammed by SFO over collapse of $67m corruption trial

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Readers' comments (4)

  • As much as I would love to stick the knife into Akin Gump, this is the SFO's screw-up : plain and simple. When are we going to produce a proper fully-funded serious fraud unit, which knows how to prosecute a major complex case, soup to nuts. If you ask the SFO, they will say its all about the funding and the people they can attract. Look at how they do it in the US - a revolving door of talented juniors, with the some of the best brains working on complex cases.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Competence in the public sector is not obviously linked to the amount of funding.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Eye has been detailing the basic lack of comptence at the SFO, from memory, the date of creation of the SFO.

    Case directors are not (other than in city terms) poorly paid and the senior management are very well looked after.

    How many high profile c-ck ups do there have to be before one can (absent tin foil hat) start asking the quesitons knaves or fools?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Now that’s interesting. Mark MacDougall and Randy Teslik have a lot of questions to answer. They chickened out when their lies were found out and THEIR interference with witnesses was exposed in court. There’s another article which talks about how one of the key prosecution witnesses (Jeremy Nottingham) admitted to the court that Mr. Teslik tried to influence his testimony and convince Nottingham to lie in favor of the prosecution! It seems like the SFO were led to believe by Akin & Gump right from the beginning that there was a case to pursue but the SFO only found out the hard and embarrassing way that it was all a pack of lies. This is like a prank call to 911. Not funny and there’s a punishment for it. The SFO should go after Akin & Gump for wasting their time and wasting public money (a considerable amount of money I would suspect since this case was being investigated for some 6 years!).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (4)