Print Article



On 31 January 2020, Dame Victoria Sharp, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division sitting in the Crown Court in Southwark, approved the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) between the UK Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) and Airbus S.E. (“Airbus”), the ultimate parent company of the Airbus Group.

Under the DPA, Airbus must pay €990,963,712 to the SFO — the largest UK DPA financial settlement to date and greater than the combined total of all previous financial settlements under UK DPAs.

In this briefing, we provide an overview of the Airbus investigation, draw out the Court’s key considerations in its determination that a DPA was in the interests of justice (despite the egregious nature of the conduct) and we consider the potential implications for corporates who may wish to pursue a DPA where bribery and corruption is identified.

In particular, Dame Sharp’s comments in relation to Airbus’ self-reporting and cooperation, and her emphasis on the importance of debarment for Airbus, add useful colour to the increasing pool of DPA case law.

As this is also the first instance of a UK DPA being reached with a non-UK entity (Airbus is registered in the Netherlands), we also discuss the jurisdictional reach of the ‘failure to prevent’ offence under section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010 (the “Act”); albeit that, as jurisdiction was conceded by Airbus, it was not a contested matter that the Court had to determine.

To read HERBERT-SMITH-FREEHILLS full briefing, please click


The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email