Blog

Civil Non-Prosecution Agreement


Three types of means are covered by the wording of JM 9-27 400: (1) agreements under which further charges are not sought or dismissed in exchange for the defendant`s appeal of an accused offence or a minor or related offence (“Indictment Agreements”); (2) agreements under which the government takes a certain position on the sanction to be imposed (“penalty agreements”); and (3) agreements that combine a plea with a rejection of the indictment and an obligation of the prosecutor on the government`s position in sentencing (“mixed agreements”). Fifteen of the 18 agreements concluded so far in 2021 were DPAs, reflecting a continuation of the trend towards ODA, as shown in Figure 3 below and discussed in our 2020 semi-annual update and our 2020 year-end update. While the trend towards DPAs may signal a shift towards self-disclosure to achieve the NPA, this year`s NPAs highlight the importance of factual circumstances and mitigating factors: self-disclosure alone is not determinative. First, if the applicable benchmark beyond which a penalty may be imposed has not been affected, easily provable charges may be dismissed or dropped in a plea bargain. It is important to know whether dropping a charge can affect a penalty, including fines such as refund or forfeiture. For example, the multiple offence rules in Chapter 3, Part D of the Guidelines and the corresponding standard of conduct in the Sentencing Directive § 1B1.3(a)(2) mean that certain abandoned charges are counted for sentencing purposes, subject to the legal maximum for the offence(s) of conviction. It is important for state prosecutors to understand when conduct that is not charged in an indictment, or alleged conduct in charges to be dismissed under an agreement, may be counted in the conviction and when it may not be. For example, in the case of a defendant who could be charged with five bank robberies, the decision to charge only one count or to dismiss four counts under an agreement precludes consideration of the four flights not charged or rejected to determine a benchmark, unless the agreement contains a provision on other flights. In contrast, in the case of a defendant who could be charged with five counts of fraud, the total amount of money involved in a fraudulent scheme is taken into account when establishing a benchmark, even if the defendant pleads guilty to a single charge and there is no provision on the other counts. Figure 1 below shows all known NPAs and DPAs of companies from 2000 to 2021 to the present day.

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, there were a total of 38 enterprise APDs and NPAs in 2020 – an increase from 2018 and 2019 and the highest number in a single year since 2016. Agreements are often reached on the eve of an administrative change in the GM because companies are concerned that the terms and conditions will change. Although 2021 to date is slightly behind 2020 in terms of the number of mid-year agreements, 2021 is poised to become another active year in this area. Ministry policy requires transparency and honesty in sentencing; Federal prosecutors are expected to identify departures from the court if they agree to support them. For example, it would be inappropriate for a prosecutor to agree that an exit is acceptable, but to hide the agreement in an indictment agreement presented to a court as a fait accompli, so that there is no record or judicial review of departure. It is also important to determine whether the person has a history of cooperation with law enforcement officers, either as a witness or as an informant, and whether he or she has ever been the subject of a coercive order under 18 U.S..C§ §§ 6001-6003 or whether he or she has escaped prosecution under a not to prosecute agreement. This information on enforcement orders can be obtained by telephone from the Policy and Enforcement Unit of the Law Enforcement Operations Office of the Criminal Division. When entering into a non-prosecution agreement, government counsel should, to the extent possible, explicitly limit the scope of the government`s obligation to: even if it is not possible to obtain the desired cooperation under an agreement on “informal immunity”, government counsel should try to limit the scope of the agreement with respect to witness statements and recorded transactions, taking into account the potential impact of its agreement on law enforcement in other districts. Comment.

JM 9-27.450 aims to facilitate compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure and to provide protection against misunderstandings that may arise with respect to the terms of a plea agreement. Rule 11(c)(2) requires that an agreement on the objection be disclosed in open session (except for good cause, in which case disclosure may be made in camera), while rule 11(c)(4) requires that the decision provided for in the agreement be recorded in the decision. Compliance with these requirements is facilitated if the agreement has been reduced in writing in advance. Whenever a defendant files a negotiated plea, this fact and the terms of the agreement should also be recorded in the Agency`s file. Written agreements will facilitate the Ministry`s efforts to monitor prosecutors` compliance with ministry guidelines and guidelines. The documents may contain a copy of the court minutes at the time of the public plea hearing. Each office has a formal system for approving the means negotiated. Licensing authority must be assigned to at least one U.S.

assistant prosecutor for criminal law oversight or a supervisory attorney from a Department of Justice litigation department, who is responsible for assessing the suitability of the appeal agreement in accordance with the Department of Justice`s plea guidelines. If certain foreseeable factual situations occur very frequently and are treated in the same way, the approval requirement may be met by a written instruction from the competent supervisor describing the standard procedure to be followed with particular characteristics, provided that this procedure is otherwise in accordance with the Ministry`s directives. An example would be a border district that regularly handles a large number of cases of illegal aliens on a daily basis. [47] See Biden Justice Department Refusing to Release Corporate Deferred and Non Prosecution Agreement Database, Corporate Crime Reporter (June 23, 2021), www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/biden-justice-department-refusing-to-release-corporate-deferred-and-non-prosecution-agreement-database/. In connection with the same underlying conduct, United entered into a separate settlement under the False Claims Act with the DOJ (Civil Division, Fraud Section, Commercial Litigation Branch) on February 25, 2021. [200] United agreed to pay $32.1 million as part of the civil settlement. [201] Federal prosecutors use three main factors to determine whether to offer a cooperation agreement or a non-prosecution agreement: The wording of JM 9-27,400 regarding criminal agreements is intended to cover the full range of positions that the government wants to take at sentencing. Options include: do not take a position on the sentence; not to oppose the defendant`s claim; Request a specific type of sentence (e.g. B, a fine or probation), a specific fine or imprisonment, or no more than a specific fine or imprisonment; and ask for simultaneous sentences instead of consecutive sentences. Consent to such an option must be consistent with sentencing guidelines. 3. Mixed agreements.

Plea bargaining, whether indictments or criminal proceedings, must reflect the whole and gravity of the accused`s conduct and any deviation that the prosecutor accepts and be achieved through appropriate provisions on criminal guidelines. Government counsel may, in an appropriate case, enter into an agreement with a defendant that, after his or her admission of guilt or not guilty for an accused offence or for a minor or related offence, the defendant will not lay any further charges or request the dismissal of further charges, occupying a certain position with respect to the sentence to be imposed. or take other action. On February 17, 2021, Colas Djibouti SARL (“Colas Djibouti”) – a French concrete contractor and wholly-owned subsidiary of French civil engineering company Colas SA – entered into an DPA with the U.S. Attorney`s Office for the Southern District of California to resolve allegations related to Colas Djibouti`s sale of non-compliant concrete used to build U.S. Navy airfields in the Republic of Djibouti. [106] Specifically, the Department of Justice asserted that Colas knowingly supplied Djibouti (1) with inferior concrete for use in the United States. . . .

Related Posts