We aim to make this site as accessible as possible and therefore have provided the settings below to use if you are finding it difficult to view this website. See the SFO Accessibility Statement for more information.

Where it is appropriate to provide a Welsh translation, you can switch to Cymraeg. See the Welsh Language Commissioner website for more information.

Use the settings button in the bottom right corner of the page to access these settings again.

We would like to use Analytics Cookies on our website. 

Turn these on below if you are happy with us collecting information on how our site is used, in order for us to improve the overall experience of our website. 

All other cookies are necessary and therefore by continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to the usage of these cookies.

 See the SFO Privacy Policy for more information. 

Analytics Cookies

R v Bluu Solutions Limited and Tetris Projects Limited

The Serious Fraud Office opened a criminal investigation into suspected bribery at Bluu Solutions Limited (BSL) and Tetris Projects Limited (TPL) in 2017.

The SFO secured two Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) on 19th July 2021, with BSL and TPL, which are both subsidiaries of real estate company Jones Lang LaSalle.

Following the agreement of the DPAs, an investigation into individuals continued, resulting in Roger Dewhirst pleading guilty to two counts of accepting or agreeing to receive bribes, totalling approximately £290,998, contrary to Section 2(1) and (2) of the Bribery Act 2010 on 31st May 2021.


Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Under the terms of the DPAs, BSL has accepted responsibility for four offences of bribery and one offence of failure to prevent bribery during the tender process for five office refurbishment contracts worth approximately £11.5 million.

TPL has accepted responsibility for one offence of failure to prevent bribery amounting to £2.62 million.

The DPA requires the companies to pay a combined penalty of over £1.9 million and to pay back all profit obtained through bribery, £604,407. The DPA contains a requirement for TPL to follow a 24-month compliance plan (the “Compliance Plan”).

The DPAs relate to the criminal liability of Bluu Solutions Ltd and Tetris Projects Limited. They do not address whether liability of any sort attaches to any employee, agent, former employee or former agent of Bluu Solutions Ltd and Tetris Projects Limited.

The DPAs, Statement of Facts and Judgment of Mrs Justice May can be found here.


Outcome of Criminal Case

The DPA Statement of Facts and Judgment contain anonymised names of individuals subsequently acquitted at trial. These individuals are subject to an anonymisation order and cannot be named.

Director 1 and Director 2 each denied the criminal conduct alleged. Director 1 and Director 2 were charged with offences under the Bribery Act 2010 arising from the SFO investigation and were acquitted of all charges.

Agent 2 was charged with offences under the Bribery Act 2010 arising from the SFO investigation and was acquitted of all charges.


A note on individuals

In relation to the individuals referred to in the DPA judgment, Mrs Justice May DBE, the judge who approved these DPAs made clear that:

  • …[I]n deciding whether or not to approve the DPA, the court exercises no fact-finding function, being dependent for its assessment upon the facts agreed between the parties and presented to it as part of the application. The court’s role is one of oversight only, making an independent assessment of the public interest in arriving at the DPA and of the reasonableness, fairness and proportionality of the particular terms which the parties have agreed.
  • That assessment must necessarily include consideration of the level of seriousness of the offending and the culpability of the company concerned. As companies can only act through individuals it will often – almost invariably – be the case that a consideration of the seriousness of the corporate offending will involve reference to the actions of individuals. That is certainly the case here. However the facts which have been agreed between the SFO and the corporate Respondents and set out in the Statement of Facts in this case, or presented orally to me at the hearings, have not been agreed by any of the individuals to which I refer in this judgment, nor have they been asked for their comments. Accordingly where, for the purposes of explaining my reasons for granting the necessary declarations, I make reference to the conduct of individuals I wish to emphasise that I am making no findings of fact concerning them.

Page published on 17 Aug 2021 | Page modified on 9 Mar 2023