Court documents
- Serious Fraud Office v Glencore Energy UK Limited (reporting restrictions) [2022] EWCR 1 (Reporting restrictions judgment)
- The Serious Fraud Office v Glencore Energy UK Ltd (Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Fraser, Southwark Crown Court, 3 November 2022)
- The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Serious Fraud Office v Glencore Energy UK [2022] EWCR 2 (Nigeria’s application to intervene as a victim)
- Rex v Glencore Energy UK, Bloomberg and others [2024] EWCR 6 (Lifting of anonymity orders)
In May 2022, Glencore announced it had reached a global coordinated resolution of corruption investigations by US, UK and Brazilian authorities. The commodities giant has paid out more than $1.1 billion to cover financial penalties as a result of these investigations.
These significant fines reflect the scale and seriousness of Glencore’s corruption:the investigations uncovered a vast bribery scheme spanning more than a decade and affecting more than 7 countries on 2 continents.
In the UK proceedings, Glencore Energy UK Ltd pleaded guilty to paying $29 million in bribes to benefit from special oil deals in five African countries. This resulted in the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) securing the first-ever substantive corporate bribery conviction under section 1 of the Bribery Act 2010, alongside various ‘failure to prevent’ bribery offences.
In sentencing Glencore, the judge at Southwark Crown Court described the corporate corruption as “endemic”, involving “sustained criminality” over many years and “extremely sizeable cash sums” being transported by private jet across borders. Yet the harm of this corporate offending was reduced to an abstract figure which was agreed between the parties and based on the gross profit derived by Glencore through its bribery. This figure formed the basis of the sentencing formula which culminated in the £280 million payment (£183 million fine, £93 million of assets confiscated, and £4 million for the Crown’s legal costs).
While Glencore has paid over a billion in financial penalties globally, those most harmed by its corruption have not been properly compensated.
In the UK, Nigeria was denied permission to intervene in the UK criminal proceedings to claim status as a victim and seek compensation, with the court ruling that it is the prosecutor’s job to seek compensation for victims. But in this case – as in many others before it – the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) did not pursue compensation because this is only available in “clear and simple cases”. As a result, the overseas victims in complex bribery cases like Glencore have been left empty-handed while the UK Treasury reaps the rewards of big corporate fines.
The US has also fallen short by leaving it up to individual victims to bring their own claims against Glencore. In February 2023, a US court awarded $30 million in restitution to the founders of Crusader Health, a company that provided medical services to Congolese mining communities which collapsed after Glencore bribed a judge to sway the outcome of a contractual dispute. But the Congolese employees of Crusader Health who lost their jobs were not compensated under this order, prompting anti-corruption and human rights groups this week to call on the US Department of Justice to reallocate a portion of Glencore’s fines to these Congolese victims.
After being overlooked in court proceedings, the governments of affected countries in Africa have begun to assert claims directly against Glencore. But unlike the series of lawsuits brought by Glencore shareholders, these negotiations are happening behind closed doors.
In December 2022, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) struck a $180 million deal with the company “covering all present and future claims arising from any alleged acts of corruption by the Glencore Group in the DRC between 2007 and 2018”. Nigeria followed suit in May 2024 by announcing a $50 million settlement with Glencore.
While these payments reflect a welcome recognition of the need to redress harms caused by corruption, the lack of transparency around these deals raise serious concerns about how the funds will be used and who will really stand to benefit.
