R v Bluu Solutions Limited and Tetris Projects Limited

The Serious Fraud Office opened a criminal investigation into suspected bribery at Bluu Solutions Limited (BSL) and Tetris Projects Limited (TPL) in 2017.

The SFO secured two Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) on 19^th July 2021, with BSL and TPL, which are both subsidiaries of real estate company Jones Lang LaSalle.

Following the agreement of the DPAs, an investigation into individuals continued, resulting in Roger Dewhirst pleading guilty to two counts of accepting or agreeing to receive bribes, totalling approximately £290,998, contrary to Section 2(1) and (2) of the Bribery Act 2010 on 31^st May 2021.

Roger Dewhirst was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, at a hearing at Southwark Crown Court on 5^th June 2023.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Under the terms of the DPAs, BSL has accepted responsibility for four offences of bribery and one offence of failure to prevent bribery during the tender process for five office refurbishment contracts worth approximately £11.5 million.

TPL has accepted responsibility for one offence of failure to prevent bribery amounting to £2.62 million.

The DPA requires the companies to pay a combined penalty of over £1.9 million and to pay back all profit obtained through bribery, £604,407. The DPA contains a requirement for TPL to follow a 24-month compliance plan (the “Compliance Plan”).

The DPAs relate to the criminal liability of Bluu Solutions Ltd and Tetris Projects Limited. They do not address whether liability of any sort attaches to any employee, agent, former employee or former agent of Bluu Solutions Ltd and Tetris Projects Limited.

Conclusion of Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Full information is available in the Statement of Facts, agreed by the SFO, Tetris Projects Limited and Bluu Solutions Limited. The Agreements, Statement of Facts, Undertakings by Jones Lang LaSalle and Details of Compliance are published below.

19 July 2021

Deferred Prosecution Agreement Tetris Projects Limited

Deferred Prosecution Agreement Bluu Solutions Limited

Statement of Facts

Undertaking by JLL EU

Undertaking by JLL CIL

28 July 2023

Details of Compliance – Discontinuance of proceedings on expiry of deferred prosecution agreement

Information about how Deferred Prosecution Agreements work in the UK is here.

Outcome of Criminal Case

Director 1 and Director 2 each denied the criminal conduct alleged. They were charged with offences under the Bribery Act 2010 arising from the SFO investigation and were acquitted of all charges.

An Agent was charged with offences under the Bribery Act 2010 arising from the SFO investigation and was acquitted of all charges.

A note on individuals

In relation to the individuals referred to in the DPA judgment, Mrs Justice May DBE, the judge who approved these DPAs made clear that:

• …[I]n deciding whether or not to approve the DPA, the court exercises no fact-finding function, being dependent for its assessment upon the facts agreed between the parties and presented to it as part of the application. The court’s role is one of oversight only, making an independent assessment of the public interest in arriving at the DPA and of the reasonableness, fairness and proportionality of the particular terms which the parties have agreed.
• That assessment must necessarily include consideration of the level of seriousness of the offending and the culpability of the company concerned. As companies can only act through individuals it will often – almost invariably – be the case that a consideration of the seriousness of the corporate offending will involve reference to the actions of individuals. That is certainly the case here. However the facts which have been agreed between the SFO and the corporate Respondents and set out in the Statement of Facts in this case, or presented orally to me at the hearings, have not been agreed by any of the individuals to which I refer in this judgment, nor have they been asked for their comments. Accordingly where, for the purposes of explaining my reasons for granting the necessary declarations, I make reference to the conduct of individuals I wish to emphasise that I am making no findings of fact concerning them.