Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Yates Memo is Here to Stay: Signs of Increasing Efforts to Hold Individuals Criminally Liable for Corporate Wrongdoing
It is axiomatic that companies cannot do wrong without the actions of individuals. However, the trend over the past few decades, with a few exceptions, has been that individuals generally were not prosecuted for their roles in corporate wrongdoing that harmed the public welfare. In response, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced policies designed to obtain information from companies about culpable insiders in order to facilitate prosecutions of those responsible for corporate malfeasance. Initially, it was questionable whether these efforts would pay off. Now, with what appears to be a recent escalation in prosecutions of corporate executives, it seems that the government is beginning to hit its stride.
These latest actions against corporate executives are significant for three reasons. First, several involve the government's reliance on never-before-used laws, at least not used in the criminal context against individuals, demonstrating the government's willingness to prosecute executives for their companies' crimes. Second, they show that the "Memorandum on Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing," issued in 2015 by then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates (the Yates Memo), and its progeny have been successful in spurring actions against individuals and companies, and will likely continue in force. Third, many involve felony prosecutions with potentially substantial penalties, including prison time. This is a far cry from the limited misdemeanor liability to which corporate executives traditionally have been exposed to under the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine (RCOD).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.