Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For companies suspected of wrongdoing, cooperating with Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations and self-disclosing their misconduct often appears to be their only option to avoid prosecution and reduce large financial penalties. But, these benefits often come at a price, especially to company employees who are caught in the middle. To gain cooperation credit for voluntary self-disclosure, companies are expected to identify all relevant facts relating to the individuals responsible for the alleged misconduct. And as part of demonstrating their cooperation to the government, companies often pressure their employees to submit to interviews, including with DOJ, or risk losing their jobs and/or indemnification of legal fees. Such scenarios, which have become prevalent in today’s corporate enforcement environment, place employees “between the rock and the whirlpool” by arguably coercing their testimony and infringing on their constitutional right against self-incrimination. See, Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 498 (1967).
*May exclude premium content
By Steve Sozio, Rebecca Martin, Rajeev Muttreja and Mark Rotatori
With the federal government appropriating more than $2 trillion for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiffs’ lawyers, regulators and politicians have trumpeted the search for whistleblowers — many of whom will try to cash in on perceived fraud in the funding programs created by the CARES Act and other enactments.
By Carolyn H. Kendall
Compliance Programs Offer Companies an Opportunity to Mitigate Risk
This article outlines the principles of corporate criminal liability, including the factors prosecutors consider when making charging decisions, and the potentially available sanctions in light of applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and offers strategies for minimizing risk, including lessons from recent criminal enforcement actions.
By Daniel R. Alonso, Preston Burton and Meredith Leeson
IGs have been part of the federal landscape for more than 40 years, so why all the fuss now? The answer is that they are a key element of the government’s built-in mechanisms for protecting the nation’s public treasury, and a relief package of this scope strongly indicates that the IGs and the new oversight bodies will spend many years scrutinizing funds spent under it.
By Christopher M. Ferguson
This article discusses what tools the government has for pursuing seemingly undeserving PPP borrowers, the obstacles to bringing such cases, and the factors that may influence the government’s decision in pursuing criminal or civil cases.