Investigators will of course focus on individuals who may have behaved in such a way that they will be held criminally responsible on behalf of the company. However, such investigations should be planned and conducted in such a way as not to compromise the fairness of the proceedings or proceedings of such persons in order to enable them to withstand judicial review. Any agreement or arrangement between the company and the FSOS case supervisor on how the investigation should proceed will be vigorously dissected by the court convicting the person. For example, the decision not to distribute the full interview notes, but to make an oral presentation and have it transcribed, was described as „highly artificial“. The lawyers who worked for the company did not believe they had waived any privileges by making this offer, according to green j, which was false. Following the FSOS` first DPA, with the condemnation of Standard Bank and Sweett Group for a company`s failure to prevent corruption, a clearer picture of the conduct required to obtain an ODA emerges (although tacit practical considerations such as the likelihood of a party challenging prosecution may inevitably apply). The main factor influencing the issuance of an ODA is whether it is in the „interests of justice“ to do so. In the evaluation, the court took into account six factors: it should be borne in mind that after passing the above test, an invitation from the prosecutor to participate in the ODA discussions does not guarantee that an agreed ODA will be achieved at the end of these discussions. In fact, the judicial review incorporated into the UK ODA regime means that even if an agreement has been reached with the prosecutor, the ODA ultimately cannot be approved by the Court. Analysis. These acquittals are in addition to another high-profile case in which the FSF was unable to support a DPA with a successful prosecution of the persons whose alleged misconduct formed the basis of the company`s decision and was expressly identified as such, particularly with regard to Sarclad`s liability under the Corruption Act. The director of the FSO, Lisa Osofsky, has publicly stated that she is reviewing how the FSO investigates and, most importantly, presents cases in court. .