Despite the aggressive tendencies of prosecutors in today`s tense legal landscape, there are many ways in which defendants who stand with white necks can minimize or avoid penalties, including the application of deferred and non-criminal agreements (DPAs and NPAs). If you have been investigated for white-necked criminal activity, you may feel a little overwhelmed by the prospect of a criminal dispute – the threat of sanctions is certainly more “true” than ever, with the Justice Department actively prosecuting cases of employees to redeem their alleged weakness in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Despite intense congressional oversight in recent years, the Justice Department`s enforcement of non-prosecution and non-prosecution agreements continues to increase. And now the Securities and Exchange Commission is getting used to it.  Press release, New York Attorney General`s Office, Attorney General James announces agreements with the Industrial Bank of Korea in connection with an illegal transfer of more than $1 billion to Iran (April 20, 2020), ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/attorney-general-james-announces-agreement-industrial-bank-korea-related-illegal. The SFO identified a number of factors that contributed to its decision to offer a dpa to G4S C-J, including the company`s disclosure of materials related to the underlying behaviour (1); (2) essential cooperation, “although delayed”; (3) corrective measures; and (4) an agreement on “a comprehensive audit, evaluation and reporting program on its internal controls, policies and procedures.”  In particular, G4S Plc has agreed to guarantee the performance of G4S C-J, its 100% subsidiary, as part of the program review.  The ten public interest factors are: “a. the circumstances in which the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence was brought to the attention of the investigating authorities; b. the nature and seriousness of the act or omission and its consequences on each victim; c. the degree of involvement of senior Officials of the Organization in the action or omission; (d) whether the organization has taken disciplinary action, including the termination of the employment relationship, against those involved in the act or omission; (e) whether the Organization has made amends or taken other measures to repair the damage caused by the act or omission and to prevent the commission of similar acts or omissions; (f) whether the organization has identified or declared a person involved in a fault related to the act or omission; g. if the organization – or one of its representatives – has been convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory authority, or if it has entered into a previous redress agreement or other scheme in Canada or elsewhere for similar acts or omissions; h. if the organization – or any of its representatives – committed other offences, including those not on that party`s schedule, have committed offences other than those committed; and i. any other factor that the Crown Council deems relevant. Next to the SEC, the Department of Justice records its own records in the DPA-NPA arena.
The increase in the number of agreements is due to many factors, including the increase in the DoJ`s resources and its more aggressive attitude towards business-related crime; Putting more emphasis on the enforcement of the foreign corruption law; and the frequency of voluntary disclosure of any corporate misconduct. Thirteen of the thirty-two agreements reached in 2010 cited voluntary self-reporting of wrongdoing as a contribution to the agreement.