To make this site simpler, we place small data files on your computer known as cookies. Most of our cookies are strictly necessary in order for the website to function correctly and these cookies do not store any of your personal data.

We also allow you to choose whether to allow Google Analytics cookies or not. Google Analytics cookies improve our understanding of how you use the website so we can make sure it meets your needs. If you should choose to accept the Google Analytics cookie, we will still anonymise all data collected.

Click here to find out more on the SFO's privacy policy and use of cookies.

Analytics Cookies

Gyrus Group Limited and Olympus Corporation

4 September, 2013 | News Releases

Criminal proceedings by the Serious Fraud Office have commenced against two companies by written charge.

Gyrus Group Ltd, a UK subsidiary of Olympus Corporation, and Olympus have been charged with offences of making a statement to an auditor which was misleading, false or deceptive, contrary to section 501 Companies Act 2006. Gyrus Group faces four charges and Olympus faces one charge.

The alleged offences are said to have taken place between April 2010 and March 2011 and arose from a global fraud case for which Olympus Corporation was prosecuted in Japan.

The first hearing in this case will take place at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 10 September 2013.

Notes for editors:

1) This case was accepted by the SFO for investigation on 9 November 2011 after referral by the former CEO of Olympus, Michael Woodford.

2) Olympus Corporation is a Japanese conglomerate specialising in camera and audio equipment, medical systems, life sciences and industrial equipment. Gyrus Group Ltd, formerly Gyrus Group PLC, was a Berkshire based medical systems company and was acquired by Olympus in 2008.

3) As a result of the global fraud prosecution in Japan, Olympus as well as three former executives Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, Hideo Yamada and Hishashi Mori were sentenced in July 2013.

4) As proceedings are underway the strict liability rule in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies.

Related Cases