Grant Thornton's role in Tchenguiz case questioned

by Richard Crump

More from this author

28 May 2012

  • Comments
Grant Thornton sign

INFORMATION PROVIDED to the Serious Fraud Office by Grant Thornton in its investigation into Mayfair property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz has been called into question.

SFO director David Green said last week that it would consider dropping its investigation into Tchenguiz in connection to the collapse of an Icelandic bank Kaupthing.

On the final day of a judicial review into the SFO investigation, Lord Goldsmith QC, barrister for Tchenguiz, questioned the information the fraud watchdog had received from Grant Thornton.

The Financial Times reported that the SFO had relied heavily upon Grant Thornton for information it used to build its case against Vincent Tchenguiz and his brother Robert, while the accounting firm was acting as administrator for Kaupthing.

"Our complaint was that they had a direct interest in this litigation, they had a substantial conflict of interest as a result," the FT cited Lord Goldsmith as saying. "Obviously, it doesn't mean that what they're saying may not be right. Of course it may be right. What it does mean is that this is a fundamental point which should have been drawn to the attention of the judge, but wasn't."

Grant Thornton said that it acted appropriately in an emailed statement made in March before the judicial review began

"Grant Thornton has acted appropriately, and in accordance with its professional responsibilities and legal obligations, throughout. Any disclosure made has been accurate and in accordance with those professional and legal obligations.

"It is the responsibility of the investigating agency to review and interpret any information provided to it, and to act as it sees fit. Grant Thornton did not act as advisor to the Serious Fraud Office

"We understand that the SFO has been ordered to produce a witness statement to clarify matters. We cannot comment further due to the ongoing criminal investigation by the SFO, the continuing judicial review process and our confidentiality obligations."


Visitor comments

blog comments powered by Disqus

Add your comment

We won't publish your address

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions

Your comment will be moderated before publication

  • Send



Conservatoire for Dance and Drama, London, Permanent, Part Time, £60,000 pro rata




Get the latest financial news sent directly to your inbox

  • Best Practice
  • Business
  • Daily Newsletter
  • Essentials


Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles

Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you

Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you



Why budgeting fails: One management system is not enough

If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.


iXBRL: Taking stock. Looking forward

In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.