UK and European Taskforce Emerges to Expand Anti-Corruption as US Looks to Scale Back

The United Kingdom, France, and Switzerland recently issued a founding statement to establish a new anti-corruption prosecutorial taskforce—an international move that could be seen as a response to the United States’ pause on new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement. This LawFlash explores whether this taskforce could step into the global anti-corruption role historically led by the US, the role and powers of the Serious Fraud Office, and the Bribery Act 2010.

US President Donald Trump’s executive order pausing new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations and enforcement has sparked debate as to how the US Department of Justice will approach enforcement of corruption-related offenses moving forward. The executive order issued on February 10, 2025 requires US Attorney General Pam Bondi to develop new guidance by August 9, 2025. Given the preeminent role the US has played over many years in prosecuting global bribery schemes and securing massive attendant penalties—often in parallel and cooperation with other counties—questions loom for practitioners and clients alike as to whether one or more ex-US nations will step into the breach.

One early notable signal is the founding statement issued by the UK, France, and Switzerland on March 20, 2025 establishing a new anti-corruption prosecutorial taskforce (the Taskforce). The Taskforce will operate working groups to facilitate cooperation and the exchange of ideas and offer “increased” best practice sharing. As always, it will take time to evaluate its execution and results. Some have questioned how much it will change practically speaking. However, symbolically, the Taskforce is significant in that it makes clear an intention and desire for these countries to expand their anti-corruption footprint.

If the establishment of the Taskforce is viewed as a statement of intent, it is important to consider the actual legal and prosecutorial capabilities of its signatories. The French Financial Prosecution Office (PNF) often enforces international corruption offenses under Sapin II (the main French anti-corruption law), becoming more active in recent years following the adoption of the Deferred Prosecution model. Switzerland too is a relatively active enforcer, although often in conjunction with matters where the US was in the lead. For example, in 2024, it fined a natural resources company following the widespread corruption probe involving several countries, and in January 2025 secured a conviction against a commodities company and its CEO for bribery offenses, another multi-jurisdictional case.

However, in the opinion of many observers, the UK is potentially the best-placed country for filling some of the space left by the US. This LawFlash considers the role and powers of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the UK’s primary anti-corruption agency, and the Bribery Act 2010, the UK’s main anti-corruption legislation, and the possibility of an uptick in enforcement activity in (or involving) the UK.

Legislation

The UK’s equivalent of the FCPA is the Bribery Act 2010. In some respects, the Bribery Act is broader than the FCPA in that it criminalizes bribery in the private, as well as the public, sector and expressly applies to facilitation payments. It applies to entities incorporated in the UK and UK citizens and persons ordinarily resident in the UK. If a company carries on part of its business in the UK or has a UK subsidiary, it may be within the scope of the Bribery Act. The act has broad jurisdiction and applies to conduct anywhere in the world. Importantly, it applies to any act or omission that takes place within the UK and that forms part of the criminal conduct. That means that if a bribe is agreed to by two foreign nationals overseas but paid in the UK, that conduct would be within the scope of the Bribery Act.

Companies also need to be alive to broader criminal risks associated with corruption. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) is the UK’s main anti-money laundering legislation, and, in theory, it can have an exceptionally broad application. Under POCA, it is an offence to conceal, disguise, convert, transfer, or remove from the UK “criminal property.” Criminal property includes a person’s benefit from criminal conduct, whether it constitutes whole or part of the conduct, or is a direct or indirect benefit.

“Criminal conduct” is conduct that is an offence in the UK or, crucially, would be an offence in the UK had it occurred there. So, if a foreign company bribes another company overseas and that bribe is paid into an institution in the UK, that payment will constitute an offence. This means that ensuring the relevant corrupt conduct has no UK nexus is not necessarily sufficient to avoid the ire of the UK’s enforcement agencies.

Enforcement Powers

The SFO has access to a wide range of investigative powers. Of note are its powers under the Criminal Justice Act, which enable it to

• compel persons to attend interviews and provide answers to questions—there is no right to silence in a section 2 interview, and failure to answer questions is a criminal offence; however, the answers generally cannot be used against the interviewee;
• compel persons to provide documents—this power was the subject of a Supreme Court judgment in 2018, which found that the power extended extra-territorially to foreign companies if they had a sufficient connection to the UK; and
• apply for a search warrant.

These powers are available to the SFO in all of its cases.

A critical distinction between the UK and US is the use of whistleblowers, whose evidence is often critical in complex financial crime cases. Historically, whistleblowers have often gone to the US, whose financial incentives make it a more appealing place to blow the whistle, which has given the US an edge in obtaining intelligence relating to financial wrongdoing. Partly as a result of this, many large-scale UK investigations have “piggybacked” on US investigations.

However, that may be about to change. The SFO’s new director has repeatedly made clear that he sees an expansion of the UK’s use of whistleblowers as a critical tool in the fight against financial crime. If the UK does, as he suggests, introduce significant financial bonuses for whistleblowers, and the US is no longer enforcing FCPA cases, the UK will become a natural first port of call for corporate whistleblowers. In those circumstances, the SFO could expect to see a significant uptick in valuable intelligence.

Outlook

Large-scale corruption cases with both a UK and US element are common. Until now, the general legal principle against double jeopardy means that multi-jurisdictional bribery cases involving the US and UK have at times been characterized by each side seeking jurisdiction over a larger portion of the criminal conduct, and so a larger proportion of the criminal penalties. If the US were to leave the field, in theory, the UK would be able to pursue a wider range of criminal conduct that is caught by both the FCPA and Bribery Act. On the other hand, without valuable US intelligence, the SFO may find it harder to identify potential investigatory leads.

The SFO’s relatively new director has so far prioritized domestic fraud cases that are, in his view, “directly relevant to the taxpayer.” However, the launch of the Taskforce suggests that international bribery offenses remain a priority for the SFO. Similarly, the National Crime Agency has expressed a willingness to investigate conduct with a strong international element. These agencies operate under much stricter resourcing constraints than their US equivalents. While they certainly have the legal framework, only time will tell whether they have the operational capability and appetite to take advantage of any void that is left by the US.

STAY INFORMED

Visit our US Administration Policies and Priorities resource center and subscribe to our mailing list for the latest on programming, guidance, and current legal and business developments involving the Trump-Vance administration.