Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) have become a significant part of white-collar criminal practice. Pioneered in the United States, they are now authorized (with modifications) in the United Kingdom, France, Canada and elsewhere. DPAs have been accepted as a means of achieving corporate remediation and reform without causing the collateral harm of a guilty plea. This outlook is reflected in Department of Justice policy developed over many years, including recent policy statements and speeches.
But DPAs (and nonprosecution agreements, or NPAs) are not without controversy. These agreements have been attacked as too lenient, not forcing companies to be held accountable for illegal conduct. They are also seen as a way for prosecutors to appear tough on white-collar crime while not bringing charges against individuals.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.