Deferral and non-prosecution agreements allow federal agencies to make settlements with businesses and individuals accused of violating federal law. The accused in these cases are essentially on probation. There are many compelling reasons for defendants to enter into an ODA or NPA. On the one hand, many companies cannot survive full-fledged law enforcement, in which case these types of deals can be a lifeline. From the government`s perspective, DPAs and NPAs help deter future criminal behaviour, preserve judicial resources, and provide a means of restitution. A fundamental trend is clear: NPA/DPA vehicles are used by a wide range of law firms in the Department of Justice and the United States. This underscores the widespread acceptance of these agreements as a means of solving complex factual patterns. [239] Serious Fraud Office, FSO Operational Manual: Deferred Prosecution Agreements (October 23, 2020), www.sfo.gov.uk/publications/guidance-policy-and-protocols/sfo-operational-handbook/deferred-prosecution-agreements/ (hereinafter « FSO Operational Manual »). The world has changed dramatically in 2020.
However, amid the uncertainty caused by COVID-19, the U.S. Department of Justice`s (« DOJ ») use of corporate non-prosecution agreements (« NPAs ») and deferred prosecution agreements (« DPA ») has proven to be a constant. [1] 2020 proved to be a record year in terms of amounts recovered through corporate resolutions and the busiest full year under this government`s Ministry of Justice, measured by the number of agreements reached. « Monetary recoveries » figures may include amounts that are not strictly limited to an NPA or DPA, such as fines, penalties, forfeiture and refund requirements imposed by other regulators and law enforcement authorities, as well as amounts from related settlement agreements, all of which can be part of a comprehensive MPA or ODA solution. are paid by that legal entity and/or subsidiaries. The term « monitoring and reporting » includes traditional compliance monitors, self-reporting agreements and other monitoring agreements contained in settlement agreements. The change in presidential administration did not reverse the institutional dynamics of the use of non-prosecution agreements (« NPAs ») and deferred prosecution agreements (« DPA ») in the first half of 2021. [1] So far, eighteen contracts have been concluded, which corresponds to the middle of the most recent year. [155] See Gibson Dunn, 2020 Year-End Update on Business Non-Prosecution Agreements and Deferred Prosecution Agreements (January 19, 2021), www.gibsondunn.com/2020-year-end-update-on-corporate-non-prosecution-agreements-and-deferred-prosecution-agreements/#_ftn103.
We continue to follow the global trend of countries adopting and developing ODA regimes. As has already been discussed (see e.B our 2020 semi-annual update), Canada, France, Singapore and the United Kingdom currently allow ODA-type or ODA-type agreements, although prosecutors in Canada and Singapore have not yet concluded such an agreement, with both countries having passed laws approving the practice in 2018. [226] Other countries, including Australia[227], Ireland[228], Poland[229] and Switzerland[230], have also considered adopting data protection authorities or similar agreements, but since 2018 little progress has been made on proposals in all four countries. France and the UK therefore continue to lead the way in developing CCA-type regulations in the international landscape, as the UK has been authorising DPAs since 2013, France has been authorising CCA-type agreements since 2016 and both announced agreements and published corresponding guidelines in 2020. Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements help resolve criminal and civil prosecution issues prior to indictments or formal trials. In addition, the two agreements mentioned above contain a provision for the ongoing monitoring and testing of companies` compliance programs. The June 2020 guidelines emphasize that organizations` risk assessments should be based on « continuous access to operational data and information across functions, » rather than simply providing a « snapshot. » [20] The Epsilon DPA provides for « regular reviews and testing » of the company`s compliance guidelines, while the SAP NPA provides for the continuous maintenance and improvement of internal controls. [21] In accordance with the preceding sections, each of these provisions is factual: Epsilon must verify its protection of consumer data; and SAP, its export control and sanctions compliance programs. [22] As we have already seen in previous half-year and year-end updates (see e.B. our 2020 year-end update), France and the UK also have robust CCA or DPA-type frameworks. The UK`s Serious Fraud Office (« SFO ») has concluded 12 DPAs since 2015[202], and French law enforcement agencies have concluded 12 ODA-type agreements (Judicial Convention of Public Interest or CJIP) since 2017. [203] France and the United Kingdom jointly concluded four ODA-type agreements in the first half of 2021, and the evolution of ODA in the United Kingdom has sparked discussions on individual prosecutions related to DPAs.
The NPA highlighted Patterson`s cooperation in the investigation by deciding not to prosecute the company. [161] This cooperation included proactively informing the prosecutor, redressing non-compliant activities and implementing control improvements (including licensing, distribution, distribution and related sales practices), as well as entering into toll agreements. [162] Patterson also voluntarily disclosed other non-conforming conduct within the Company beyond that described in the information against AHI. [163] The NPA noted that the company « has since taken significant proactive steps to improve its regulatory function, capabilities and support to guide the company and other regulatory compliance oversight functions. » [164] In summary, it appears that the June 2020 DOJ Guidelines on Corporate Compliance Programs showed the intended effect: DOJ and the United States. Law firms adapt programs to individualized situations, at least in some cases, and other priorities of the June 2020 guidelines are reflected in the decisions. .