Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Federal Prosecutors Pressuring Companies

By Richard M. Cooper
July 29, 2004

Encouraged by recent amendments to the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines (see article on p. 3), federal prosecutors are pressuring target companies to turn on their employees in ways that were unthinkable a few years ago. The measures being extracted as elements of “cooperation” necessary to reduce corporate charges and/or fines and other penalties or, possibly, to avoid prosecution altogether include: 1) waiving the company's attorney-client privilege and work-product protection and giving prosecutors memoranda and notes of interviews with employees; 2) denying employees advancement of attorneys' fees unless they cooperate in a manner that satisfies prosecutors (ie, submit to interviews intended to lock in their version of events, provide leads to further evidence against themselves and others, and reveal any potential defenses they might assert at trial); 3) at the prosecutors' request, removing employees from their jobs and sources of income, with the consequence that it becomes impossible or more difficult for them to pay for their own counsel; and 4) either denying employees access to corporate documents produced to prosecutors or granting only limited access and reporting to prosecutors on the documents provided to employees. Thus, target companies have become active extensions of the government for purposes of coercing their employees into jeopardizing any opportunity they have to mount a successful defense against possible criminal charges.

Corporate fraud is a serious national problem. The measures just described will help prosecutors build – and win – cases against corporate employees. Still, they are bad public policy because they are unfair. They also will tend to erode somewhat the legitimacy of the federal criminal process and the loyalty of employees to their corporate employers.

Unfairness

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.