http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/Firms/67001-45155

 

THE FIRM Bark & Co is one of the UK’s leading fraud and business crime firms. The firm’s highly-skilled lawyers are committed to providing expert advice at every stage of proceedings. The firm’s principal aims are to avoid expensive litigation whenever possible and to fight tenaciously to protect its clients’ interests.
Established in 1996 by Giles Bark-Jones, Bark & Co has developed into one of the Country’s most progressive and successful fraud firms. A founder member of the Specialist Fraud Panel, the firm specialises in commercial and criminal fraud as well as serious crime, business and tax regulation, tax investigations and corporate obligations associated with health and safety enforcement. The firm acts for private individuals as well as national and international companies. It has also established itself as a leader in the field of cash and asset recovery in both criminal and civil courts.
Bark & Co prides itself on the individual expertise of its lawyers, the collective strength of its specialist teams and their skill in tailoring advice to match each client’s individual circumstances. Bark & Co’s rigorous commitment to quality of advice and personalised service has lead to significant work through referrals by both clients and other leading law firms.

PRINCIPAL AREAS OF WORK Bark & Co handles a wide range of high-profile white-collar crime and fraud cases, including prosecutions and investigations brought by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), HM Revenue & Customs, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the Special Compliance Office of the Inland Revenue, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Trading Standards and other prosecuting bodies.

Corporate & Commercial Fraud: Bark & Co became a member of the Serious Fraud Panel at its inception and is a member of the Very High Costs Cases panel (VHCC) qualified to deal with the most complex of criminal matters.Acknowledged as one of the leaders in the field of corporate and commercial fraud, the firm has defended against many of the major prosecutions brought by the SFO and other government agencies. It has acknowledged experts in VAT and duties tribunal work, tax regulation, defence of duty evasion, moneylaundering and carousel fraud, as well as mortgage fraud, investment fraud, corruption, pension fund fraud, telecoms fraud, theft, fraudulent trading by company directors and Internet fraud. Dedicated teams also deal with confiscation and post- and pre-charge restraint proceedings.

http://apps.bebo.com/widepr/press_release/41014/bark_co_solicitors_london_deferred_prosecution_agreements.html

              

The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus 
for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.

The US Approach 

In the US, DPAs are considered a hugely important weapon in the armoury of a highly successful prosecutor – the Department of Justice, which entered into nine DPAs in 2009. The DPA does pretty much what it says on the tin, deferring criminal prosecution pending certain terms and conditions being agreed (and adhered to) and fled in a formal indictment at court. Typical conditions are that prosecution is deferred for two - three years with the payment of a fine commensurate with the Federal 
Sentencing Guidelines, disgorgement of profits, a clear out of implicated directors, a possible pull-out from the market in which the wrongdoing is admitted, and the possible instruction of a court appointed monitor where the corporate does not have proper anti-corruption procedures presently in place. 
The appointment of monitors has been particularly contentious in the US where there have been allegations of a lack of transparency in their appointment, cronyism and high cost. The costs charged by monitors is particularly eye-watering to UK onlookers. Innospec were charged $50m for the corporate monitor (described by the sentencing Judge as “an outrage”), agreed as part of their 
DPA in the US. 

Are DPAs Right for the UK?

As it stands in the UK, the SFO has found it difficult, time consuming and costly to prosecute corporates in the UK for bribery and related offences as well as occasionally stymied by political interference. It is unlikely to find it any easier under the Bribery Act. It should also be noted that the SFO has been given no new money to prosecute offences committed under the Bribery Act. DPAs would therefore be a godsend. Corporates for their part may accept their criminality more readily should they be given the option of accepting a DPA as opposed to being prosecuted with all the economic damage that would entail. Explicit in the agreement of the DPA is that the company is properly prosecutable (ie, the identification principle is met) and the course of conduct meets the criminal test for prosecution ie, this isn’t a civil recovery under Pt.5 of POCA. 

Thomas LJ again commented in his Innospec judgment that matters involving corrupt payments “will rarely be appropriate to the dealt with by a civil recovery order”. One wonders whether the judiciary will be resistant to DPAs which explicitly admit criminality but where penalty may be considered tantamount to a civil recovery order. 
What Will DPAs Look Like? 

http://www.zimbio.com/Kweku+Adoboli/articles/7RRbSVagoOv/Giles+Bark+jones+bark+co+solicitors+london

Principal, crime (fraud, corporate crime, general crime). 

Position 

Principal of Bark & Co specialising in white-collar fraud, money laundering, serious crime and commercial fraud. Cases undertaken include: currently involved in a number of high-profile matters, including leading the defence team for R v Nadir. Previous cases include: R v Terrence Adams & ors (money laundering); The Kieron Fallon (horse race fixing) case representing a jockey; the Cheney Pension fraud (the largest theft from a pension fund since Maxwell); an FSA investigation concerning false accounting allegations in a multimillion-pound company; Operation Euripus cases; BAE Systems (corruption claims re £1bn South African contract); R v Harvey (SFO) fraudulent trading; R v Clark (SFO) boiler room fraud; and an HRA investigation into a well-known jockey and trainer. Career 

Trained as a barrister Francis Taylor Building; qualified 1990, Middle Temple; practised at Bar 1990-96; tenant Francis Taylor Building (Chambers of Alan Tyrrall QC); converted to solicitor 1996; partner Bark & Co 1996 to date. Education 

Rugby School; Liverpool University (1986 BA Economics); City University (Dip Law); Bar School.Practice Areas 

Crime - corporate; Crime - general; Fraud

http://www.care2.com/news/member/964868132/3396183

       

http://www.valueinvestingnews.com/fred-bunn

At Bark & Co our expert legal team has built an enviable reputation for the quality of representation, responsiveness to client needs, and high levels of client satisfaction. An original member of the Specialist Fraud Panel, Bark & Co are amongst the top firms in UKspecialising in defending criminal and civil fraud, regulatory litigation, money laundering, insider dealing and cyber crime. Our civil department specialises in all aspects of HM Customs and Excise investigations including VAT and Duties Tribunals and have established a leading practice in the fields of cash and asset recovery.

Bark & Co maintain a market leading position in large scale, highly complex fraud cases that often cross international jurisdictions. Key to our success is a culture of matching the best legal expertise to our client requirements to ensure creative, effective, and convincing defencesolutions.Our client base ranges from large corporate’s to individuals and we regularly defend against high profile investigations and prosecutions including those undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Financial Standards Authority (FSA) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) as well as other UK Government Authorities

At Bark & Co our expert legal team has built an enviable reputation for the quality of representation, responsiveness to client needs, and high levels of client satisfaction. An original member of the Specialist Fraud Panel, Bark & Co are amongst the top firms in UKspecialising in defending criminal and civil fraud, regulatory litigation, money laundering, insider dealing and cyber crime. Our civil department specialises in all aspects of HM Customs and Excise investigations including VAT and Duties Tribunals and have established a leading practice in the fields of cash and asset recovery.

Bark & Co maintain a market leading position in large scale, highly complex fraud cases that often cross international jurisdictions. Key to our success is a culture of matching the best legal expertise to our client requirements to ensure creative, effective, and convincing defencesolutions.Our client base ranges from large corporate’s to individuals and we regularly defend against high profile investigations and prosecutions including those undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Financial Standards Authority (FSA) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) as well as other UK Government Authorities

http://www.barkco.co.uk/News/Met+Police+review+Daniel+Morgan+murder+over+News+of+the+World+link

It is reported that the Met Police will now investigate a News of The World link concerning the Daniel Morgan Murder (R v Vian & Others).

Details reported [here] in the Guardian

Mr Glen Vian, represented by Bark & Co, was acquitted in March 2011.

Bark & Co has been instructed by Glenn Vian since the mid-2008.  Not guilty verdicts were entered against Mr Vian and the other defendants, following complex and fiercely fought challenges to the Crown’s case during protracted pre-trial legal argument.  The initial investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987 was deeply flawed, and many compelling leads were not pursued properly or, in some cases, at all.  The level of public resources expended in this most recent investigation is simply breathtaking.  The Police bought the house next door to Mr Vian, in order to conduct thousands of hours of intrusive covert surveillance upon him and his family.  They released false stories to the press in an effort to trigger incriminating conversations.  When these efforts failed to produce any cogent evidence, a case was built against these defendants using “supergrass” witnesses, and considerably flawed Serious Organised Crime & Police Act (SOCPA) agreements.  It will come as no surprise to right thinking people to learn that those of the worst character, facing many years in custody for crimes including drug trafficking and attempted murder, will say anything in order to secure a massive reduction in their sentence and/or substantial financial benefits.   The position is very much worse where, as in this case, a SOCPA witness is told in advance what the case theory is, and simply has to repeat it to gain his reward.  The defence has, in the course of pre-trial legal arguments, been able to discredit the Crown’s case so that, one by one, the evidence of these witnesses has been excluded by the trial Judge or abandoned by the Crown.  The recent legal arguments which preceded the collapse of the case were led by our defence team, based on a document found in the unused material by a solicitor of this firm.

When entering not guilty verdicts, the trial Judge said:-

“the legal representatives for all of the defendants, faced with a mammoth and most difficult task, have responded magnificently to it.  And the quality of the written and oral submissions that I have received has, taken overall, been of the highest quality.  The industry and the tenacity which has been shown by the defence teams is to be commended and the defendants will leave court knowing, if they did not know before, though I think they must have known before, that they have been very well served”.

 Our client comments:

“My name is Glenn Vian. I have recently been acquitted of murder at the C.C.C. I have been very lucky as I was represented by the best team of solicitors you could possibly find Bark & Co.

I cannot say enough about this firm, other than look nowhere else. They are the best. Their investigation team were brilliant.  Thanks to Eamon Harris and Fred Bunn.

All of these Solicitors are top drawer: Giles Bark-Jones, Jenny Boyden etc. Giles has no problem obtaining the best QCs because of Bark’s reputation and the team behind them. I was again fortunate to get the best QC’s David Whitehouse QC and Ed Gritt QC, absolutely brilliant men.

Which brings me to my solicitor Alison Hill, her brilliant legal mind and determination to uncover and get the truth goes above and beyond. So a very special thanks to Alison Hill and Eamon Harris for giving me back the rest of my life. God bless you all at Bark & Co

http://news.yahoo.com/ubs-rogue-trader-granted-bail-uk-court-130209292—sector.html

http://www.barkco.co.uk/Expertise/Commercial+Litigation+/+Business+disputes

Bark & Co’s initial response to business disputes is to research, analyse and obtain a clear understanding of the nature of any dispute with a view to resolving it quickly and at minimum cost.

Business disputes are increasingly common in the current economic climate but, in our experience, most can be settled without recourse to expensive Court proceedings. In the first instance we employ full use of Alternative Dispute Resolution methodologies to ascertain whether agreement can be achieved by other means – for example mediation.

Where Court proceedings cannot be avoided, our expert team will work tenaciously to ensure that the litigation process is pursued in the most efficient, timely and cost effective manner to achieve the best possible outcome for our client.

Commercial litigation covers a wide range of disputes from misuse of intellectual property and violations of securities law to employment disputes and breaches of contract. Our clients range from individuals to large corporations in UK and abroad. In all cases we ensure their specific requirements are matched by a team of appropriately able and experienced lawyers.

http://news.yahoo.com/ubs-rogue-trader-granted-bail-uk-court-130209292—sector.html