SFO and Dechert settle long-running ENRC civil claim on confidential terms after court found SFO breached its duties
A confidential out-of-court settlement has been reached between Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Dechert LLP, and David Neil Gerrard, drawing a close to one of the most significant and damaging civil actions ever brought against both a major law firm and a UK prosecutorial body. The SFO investigated ENRC between 2013 and 2023 over suspected bribery and corruption connected to mining assets in the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere. That investigation concluded without charges due to insufficient admissible evidence. ENRC had brought a civil claim against its former lawyers in 2017 and against the SFO in 2019. A court found the SFO was in breach of its duties, including engaging in and taking unauthorised information between 2011 and 2013, and further found that but for this conduct, the investigation would not have opened. All proceedings between the four parties were concluded on 2 September 2026 on terms described as confidential. The SFO's Director of Legal Services, Matthew Wagstaff, stated the office is "confident that the SFO's wrongdoing between 2011 and 2013 could never happen again," citing stronger governance, independent oversight, and clearer safeguards. The case exposed fundamental failures in how the SFO managed its relationships with external lawyers during a live investigation, and raised serious questions about Dechert's conduct as ENRC's former adviser. The settlement ends years of litigation without a publicly disclosed financial outcome, meaning the full accountability picture remains behind closed doors.
Why this matters
This settlement closes a case that has hung over the SFO and Dechert for the better part of a decade, and it does so without a public reckoning on quantum. The court's underlying finding that the SFO's unlawful conduct was the but-for cause of the investigation ever opening is a profound indictment of a prosecutorial body, and the fact that the settlement terms are confidential means that accountability is limited to the institutional acknowledgment made in the SFO's press statement. For law firms, the case is a lasting reminder that a firm's conduct during a client investigation can itself generate catastrophic liability. The settlement also raises questions about what, if any, compensation ENRC received and whether the public interest was adequately served by an opaque resolution of a case involving serious prosecutorial wrongdoing.
On the Ground
The matter activates professional negligence, public law, and commercial litigation practice areas. Clients facing SFO investigations will now scrutinise how their external advisers interact with prosecutors, creating demand for bespoke engagement protocols. Firms advising corporates under investigation will review information-barrier and conflict-of-interest procedures in light of this case's history. A trainee on this type of matter would assist with disclosure review and categorisation of the extensive documentary record, prepare chronologies of key communications between the SFO and Dechert, and help assemble and paginate trial bundles for hearings leading up to settlement.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“The court found the SFO breached its duties and that its conduct caused the ENRC investigation to open. What does that finding mean for how law firms should manage their interactions with the SFO during a live client investigation?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved