Has the SFO got the balance right?

Image via Wikipedia

"The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is right to pursue BAE Systems for past offences but not at any cost. Dragging itself the Government and BAE through the courts for years to try to prove its case is too risky."

This business editorial ask's an interesting question about balance and proportionality of the Serious Fraud Offices’s actions.

This link to a BBC article gives more information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8284073.stm

Given the importance of ethics in modern business I’d be interested in your views about whether:

1) You think that the SFO have got it right? And
2) You think the recently fined Attorney General (Baroness Scotland) has the integrity to make a decision on prosecution?

Cheers

Related articles by Zemanta

• SFO will seek to prosecute BAE over bribery claims (guardian.co.uk)
• BAE executives meet investors after SFO talks end (telegraph.co.uk)
• Law Chief Fined Over Illegal Worker (news.sky.com)
• Attorney General's Housekeeper 'Arrested' (news.sky.com)