Iqbal Mohamed MP: written questions
4 Jul 2025–3 Jul 2026
How these years work
Our reporting years run from 4 July to 3 July, starting with the 2024 general election. They are not official parliamentary sessions. Office costs keep IPSA’s April–March financial years. Records may cover only part of a year; a missing record does not mean no work was done.
Read what this MP said, asked and contributed in Parliament.
7 published records · newest first.
Written questions
Prosecutions: StandardsAttorney GeneralTabled 25 Jun 2026AnsweredUIN 13395More
Question: To ask the Solicitor General, what internal oversight exists to ensure consistency of prosecutorial decisions.
Answer: The Serious Fraud Office is an independent prosecuting authority. Its operational decisions, including whether to investigate or prosecute individuals, are the responsibility of the Director in accordance with the law. Where appropriate, the Law Officers ...
Answered 3 Jul 2026
Original Parliament recordLIBORAttorney GeneralTabled 25 Jun 2026AnsweredUIN 13394More
Question: To ask the Solicitor General, how many individuals were charged in relation to LIBOR manipulation; and how many investigations concluded without charges, disaggregated by seniority where such information is held.
Answer: 13 individuals were charged in relation to the Libor investigation. 5 were subsequently found guilty and convicted. The release of the information on investigations concluded without charges would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime.
Answered 3 Jul 2026
Original Parliament recordLIBORAttorney GeneralTabled 25 Jun 2026AnsweredUIN 13393More
Question: To ask the Solicitor General, what records are retained by the Serious Fraud Office concerning decisions not to charge individuals during the LIBOR investigations, and for how long are those records kept.
Answer: SFO case records are retained in line with its retention policy. This specifies that case related material should be maintained for at least 7 years following case closure, or the closure of any related appeals. Some material may be held for up to 20 year...
Answered 3 Jul 2026
Original Parliament recordLIBORAttorney GeneralTabled 25 Jun 2026AnsweredUIN 13392More
Question: To ask the Solicitor General, what procedures were in place during LIBOR investigations to assess the role of senior executives when deciding the scope of criminal inquiries.
Answer: The SFO’s investigations into Libor were conducted in line with accepted principles for investigating criminal cases. SFO case teams have access to detailed internal guidance to ensure a consistency of approach on its cases and decisions to charge are the...
Answered 3 Jul 2026
Original Parliament recordSerious Fraud Office: StandardsAttorney GeneralTabled 25 Jun 2026AnsweredUIN 13391More
Question: To ask the Solicitor General, whether changes have been made to Serious Fraud Office governance and oversight arrangements since July 2025.
Answer: The SFO operates within a well-established governance framework, including accountability through the Attorney General’s superintendence functions and the appointment of Non-Executive Directors as set out in their Framework Agreement. Governance arrangeme...
Answered 3 Jul 2026
Original Parliament recordSerious Fraud Office: StandardsAttorney GeneralTabled 25 Jun 2026AnsweredUIN 13390More
Question: To ask the Solicitor General, whether her Department has issued any guidance to the Serious Fraud Office following the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Respondent) v Hayes (Appellant) UKSC/2024/0087.
Answer: The judgement made in Tom Hayes’ and Carlo Palombo’s appeal to the Supreme Court regarding their convictions for manipulating Libor and Euribor was not based on flaws in the SFO’s procedures and the need for internal guidance, but that the directions give...
Answered 3 Jul 2026
Original Parliament recordSerious Fraud Office: StandardsAttorney GeneralTabled 25 Jun 2026AnsweredUIN 13389More
Question: To ask the Solicitor General, whether she plans to review the Serious Fraud Office’s internal procedures following the quashing of Mr Tom Hayes’ conviction by the Supreme Court.
Answer: The judgement made in Tom Hayes’ and Carlo Palombo’s appeal to the Supreme Court regarding their convictions for manipulating Libor and Euribor was not based on flaws in the SFO’s procedures, but that the directions given by the judge at their trials were...
Answered 3 Jul 2026
Original Parliament record
Explore activity by topic or department
Written questions by answering department
4 Jul 2025–3 Jul 2026. One record per UIN and tabled date; the named department is not a measure of answer quality.
View as listWhat this shows and doesn't show
Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →