The facts of the case are fairly straightforward.  KBR is a company incorporated in the United States; it has no fixed place of business in the UK and does not carry on business in the UK.  The section 2(3) notice was handed to KBR’s General Counsel by the SFO at a meeting in London, the SFO having insisted that the meeting be attended by an officer of the company.  The documents sought by the notice were held by KBR outside the UK.  At first instance, the Divisional Court ruled that section 2(3) might extend to non-UK companies in respect of documents held outside the UK ‘when there is a sufficient connection between the company and the jurisdiction’. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the fundamental question for the Court was whether section 2(3) of the CJA 1987 should be read as having extra-territorial effect, such that a company in the position of KBR would fall within its scope, and also whether the ‘sufficient connection’ test should be applied.

The Supreme Court observed that the general starting point is that a statute is not presumed to have extra territorial effect in the absence of express wording to that effect.  In this case, there was nothing to indicate that section 2(3) is intended to have extra territorial effect.  The court also rejected the ‘sufficient connection’ test as seeking to impose too broad a reading on the wording of the statute.

However, the decision only goes so far.  It is now clear that a foreign company, which has no registered office in the UK; which does not carry on (and has never carried on) any business in the UK and which does not hold any documents in the UK cannot be obliged by the SFO to produce documents by way of a section 2(3) notice.  However, if any of these conditions is not met, then the position is much more uncertain.  The court observed in passing that a UK company which holds documents abroad could still be caught within the ambit of a section 2(3) notice.  What of a foreign company which holds documents in the UK?  What of a foreign company which carries on business in the UK but holds documents abroad?  What about officers of the company who are temporarily in the UK?  What about corporate service providers who administer structures which hold assets or trading businesses in the UK?

For all of these reasons, the decision in KBR is not the final curtain on this issue, but rather the first act in a play which is likely to run and run.  Even if a section 2(3) notice cannot be served, evidence can still be sought by the SFO abroad by way of a request for mutual legal assistance, as the Supreme Court observed.  For now, one thing is clear.  If directors of offshore companies receive a section 2(3) notice, or are given any indication that a section 2(3) notice might conceivably be served, then they should seek legal advice as a matter of urgency.

 

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
27 Jul 2021 |

Fund Finance Update – Will Jersey’s new sustainable investment disclosure requirements aid ESG financing?

This article provides an overview of ESG, the hot topic of 2020 that is carrying on full steam throu...

Contributors: Daniel Healy
22 Jul 2021 |

Listing Variable Funding Notes (VFNs) on The International Stock Exchange

This article provides a summary of Appleby listing agent services in the Channel Islands, and also o...

1 Jul 2021 |

Saunders v Vautier where the beneficial class is not closed - the debate goes on...

The rule in Saunders v Vautier is familiar territory for trust lawyers.  In the modern world it is ...

17 Jun 2021 |

Solvency Statements under Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 - Is it time to go paperless?

In April of this year, the Royal Court of Jersey considered the practicalities around the making of ...

Contributors: Kevin McQuillan
11 Jun 2021 |

“Offshore intelligence – Funds in demand” Appleby Podcast

We have recently produced a podcast focused on the Funds industry entitled “Offshore Intelligence ...

2 Jun 2021 |

Why use Jersey entities in restructurings?

As the extension of various forbearance measures and fiscal support packages continues in response t...

Contributors: Gemma Whale, Andrew Weaver
28 May 2021 |

Further updates to the JFSC’s AML Handbook

On 31 May 2021, the handbook for the prevention and detection of money laundering and the financing ...

Contributors: Gemma Whale
20 May 2021 |

Jersey - extension of economic substance requirements to partnerships

Draft legislation has been lodged for debate in the Jersey legislature which will have the effect of...

Contributors: Paul Worsnop
19 May 2021 |

Jersey to permit investment in lawful cannabis related businesses

Proposals have been lodged with the Jersey legislature to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1...

Contributors: Mark Watson
13 May 2021 |

Podcast - Real Estate - Key considerations when structuring property holding vehicles

This month, Christophe Kalinauckas, Group Partner at Appleby in Jersey joined Stephanie Workman, Sen...