Non-Prosecution and Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Just like people, companies can commit crimes. The Enron scandal in 2001, the Bernard Madoff ponzi plan 2008-2009, both examples, despite internal and external control, regulation and oversight, the company is still multi-faceted and tends to participate in crime It shows that there is. In fact, the criminal must be punished and accountable for the act. One of the tools of Prosecution Tool Belt is the signing of a deferred criminal prosecution contract and an investigation suspension contract.

Volkswagen has already paid a huge fine, but the criminal procedure is another matter. According to a survey, between 2001 and 2014, "federal prosecutors have concluded 306 postponement and non-indictment agreements with companies." The prosecutor charged approximately one-third of the employees of these companies and as a result, 414 individuals - not the senior executives of the organization - but intermediate managers and employees of the subordinates - were separately prosecuted It was. Probably worthy of study is that the Department of Justice has not only succeeded in getting a conviction of a company official but also got the actual imprisonment time for crime. Former CEO of Mason Energy Don Blankenship was convicted of attempting to violate federal security standards. Massey Energy owns and manages the Upper Big Branch Mine, a catastrophic explosion site where 29 people died in April 2010.

It may be more reasonable not to sue white-collar executive officers if there are indications that fines and suspended prosecution contracts are preventing interruption of company misconduct. But the evidence is not optimistic. Pfizer is forced to postpone three consecutive times including illegal marketing, bribery to doctors, and other crimes. Every time the company pays a big fine and promises to change - and then returns to the same kind of action. You may think that the price of insults of deferred prosecution contracts will be prosecuted. However, after giving Pfizer a second chance, it is only continuing to cheat and the government clearly is happy to give a third opportunity.

By contrast, prolongation of prosecution contract is positive. If this meant avoiding litigation, the company would be happy to sign such an agreement and pay even greater fines. Deputy attorney general attorney general David Ogden of the Obama administration said to Eckinger: When an enterprise agrees to pay a penalty for fraud, the agreement they sign out usually explicitly details what they did wrong. Many agreements recognize corporate crime, but they do not designate a single executive officer or responsible person. "The Department of Justice claims that a huge fine indicates how difficult it is," Essinger wrote.