I'm not familiar with the contract between Fujitsu and the UK government, but it is common practice in these types of contracts to have: 1. A sign-off process

I'm not familiar with the contract between Fujitsu and the UK government, but it is common practice in these types of contracts to have: 1. A sign-off process where the customer approves releases. 2. A bug reporting process where the customer is informed of any defects in the software and whatever corrective steps are being/need to be taken in order to fix them. Although I've seen quite a bit of evidence that the Horizon software was not fit for purpose, and it had serious bugs, I have not seen any evidence that Fujitsu hid that from the Post Office (evidence does seem exist that Fujitsu conspired with the Post Office to keep that evidence from judges in various trials). It's not a crime to produce bad software (thank goodness), even under contract. Fujitsu should face consequences for lying to courts, but it seems to me that the lion's share of the criminality here is on the side of the Post Office, and they are doing a (relatively) good job of spreading blame to Fujitsu for the bugs in Horizon, where the real scandal is the dogged approach to prosecutions taken by the Post Office despite very significant problems with the evidence which were known to them.