Question follow-through · 31858
British American Tobacco: Fraud
To ask the Solicitor General, with reference to the report by the University of Bath entitled New report reveals potential $28 million tax discrepancy involving British American Tobacco in Kenya, published on 12 February 2025, if the Serious Fraud Office
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Attorney General
- Tabled
- 21 Feb 2025
- Target answer date
- 25 Feb 2025
- Answer
- 27 Feb 2025 · 6 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
21 Feb 2025
Question tabled
To ask the Solicitor General, with reference to the report by the University of Bath entitled New report reveals potential $28 million tax discrepancy involving British American Tobacco in Kenya, published on 12 February 2025, if the Serious Fraud Office
25 Feb 2025
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
27 Feb 2025
Answer published
Following a three-year investigation, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) determined in January 2021 that this case did not meet the evidential test as defined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it was closed.As is long-standing practice, the SFO can neithe...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.