Judge blasts SFO over Tchenguiz case A High Court judge has blasted the Serious Fraud Office for "sheer incompetence" after the regulator admitted it has "no clear record" of the information it used to obtain search warrants against property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz. In a hearing on Wednesday, the SFO asked for an extra six-weeks to produce a comprehensive statement about how it had built up a case against Mr Tchenguiz and his brother Robert. However, Lord Justice Thomas said the situation was "profoundly unsatisfactory" and gave the regulator until the end of April to produce a statement. The president of the Queen's Bench Division suggested Richard Alderman, the director of the SFO, should "burn the midnight oil" in a effort to complete the regulators" internal review in time to produce a statement. In court documents seen by the Financial Times, lawyers acting for the SFO claim their internal review of the case has been "hampered by the fact that there was no clear record of the precise materials that had been relied upon." The 15-page submission by the SFO is part of an effort, demanded by Mr Tchenguiz, to clarify why the fraud regulator took action against him. The SFO had been ordered by the High Court to provide details of how it put together its case. On March 4 last year, the SFO presented the court with a 147-page application for search warrants against the Tchenguiz brothers. The document focused on complex lending arrangements between Kaupthing, the failed Icelandic bank, and the two men. The warrants were granted and, five days later, the houses and offices of the Tchenguiz" were searched in a high profile dawn raid involving 135 police officers The SFO issued a three-page apology to Mr Tchenguiz in February because the regulator said it had "inadvertently relied on misinformation" in order to obtain the warrants. However, it vowed to continue with its investigation. In Wednesday's filing, the SFO said that internal investigations into its case had been delayed because it had failed to provide its own counsel review team with "materials relevant to the issues." The regulator explains that, in spite of its "best efforts," it would be impossible to provide a "full, accurate, fair, and meaningful" response to the review and asks for an extra six weeks to produce an explanation. The admission is likely to be a fresh blow to the fraud regulator as it battles to defend its ongoing investigation into Mr Tchenguiz and his brother Robert. In its request for an extension, the SFO said it recognised that the proceedings involved a "wholesale challenge to [its] competence and good faith of its staff" and that there were "profound reputational issues at stake." "It is absolutely imperative that the SFO "gets it right" and "gets it right" once," the regulator added. Mr Tchenguiz said he was mystified that the SFO wanted to continue its investigation into him and said the impact on his business had been severe. He has initiated a £100m claim against it for damages. When I was at school, I used to claim the dog had eaten my homework. It's fine for a schoolboy, but pretty feeble from a publicly funded regulator," Mr Tchenguiz added.