Pay a big fine and avoid prosecution

Presumably this company has accepted that it has committed fraud, admitted guilt and paid a fine as punishment, thus avoiding a costly and time-consuming case.
It is not right that it should be awarded future contacts.
Buyer Beware.

I think this is more complex than it would first appear.

Serco is an international service company with several divisions. Just because one area of one division has behaved in this way does not mean that all the staff in all the divisions are behaving thus. Yes, whoever is in charge overall should have been keeping a better eye on what may have been happening, but this would not have been done with the approval of senior management - hence the admission that they are mortified. They were negligent in that they failed to realise what was going on - but that does not mean the all employees in this country and worldwide are providing a poor service.
Presumably the rationale behind this is that, within such a large enterprise, it would be difficult to identify exactly who authorised, was aware of and carried out these frauds and that criminal court proceedings may be protracted, very expensive and run the risk of being unsuccessful.
I would also think that Serco has made their own investigations and whoever was behind this is no longer with the company. One would hope so.

To put at risk the reputations and jobs of the many because of the actions of the few would be wrong imo.

Slightly worrying that the little -used transparency, a rarity in many court cases, had already been implemented in this massive fraud case, yet is virtually non-existent in some of the lesser cases where a defendant is trying to prove his/her case, their lives/futures perhaps being compromised in the process yet a company such as this can continue ?

I don't know anything about this, and I wouldn't understand it anyway, but I don't get why the actual individuals who carried out the fraud can't be identified, and punished.

A company, however huge, is made up of individuals.

But, as I say, I know nothing.

The firm has not been fined - this has yet to be finally decided next Thursday. The fine has been suggested but a judge has the final decision.

You'd be happy for about 40,000 people to lose their jobs, then, as a result of the actions of a few?

^ yet a company such as this can continue ?^
so you would be happy for 50,000 employees (worldwide number) to lose their jobs because of a few bad apples who, yes, perhaps should be singled out and prosecuted.*EllanVannin*?

The company is taking the rap on their behalf and, presumably, dismissed these fraudsters.

Good posts Callistemon .....it’s complicated, but justice is
Being done.
In a tiny firm it’s much easier to see where blame lies.

Of course I wouldn't be happy at the thought of thousands losing their jobs but the way this case has been carried out has been craftily put inasmuch as the company as a whole has been prosecuted and not the individuals concerned-----who could well have lost all those people their jobs. Like I said, lack of transparency when it comes to individuals.

You could say, of course, that the senior management has taken the rap instead of offering the culprits up for a possible prison sentence.
They have accepted the responsibility and said how mortified they are that this happened - so many of those at the top in all fields will not do that.

The work Serco does needs doing - if they lost the contracts another firm would get them and employ (maybe the same) workers. I notice locally that there are examples in the NHS where the private company being paid by the NHS to carry out a service loses the contract and another company wins it and the staff actually doing the work stay the same. I do wonder sometimes if Serco has got too big and diverse ( like Carillion). Maybe as well they grow so big, that they destroy the competition and so become a sort of monopoly supplier in certain areas. That’s not good for competition I would guess and also can end up with the government just having to put up with them as there’s no viable alternative.

if they lost the contracts another firm would get them and employ (maybe the same) workers.
That is what happens and unfortunately sometimes the new firm has undercut when tendering and then cuts corners - which ends up costing more in the long term.
Cheapest is not always best.

I think Carillion served as a warning all round.

That’s not good for competition I would guess and also can end up with the government just having to put up with them as there’s no viable alternative
There are always new firms arriving on the scene - I think there is plenty of competition.