United States: ‘U.S. v. Connolly': The Consequences Of Outsourcing Government Investigations To The Private Sector

In a sharp rebuke of the government that could result in meaningful changes to the way that prosecutors and defense attorneys approach internal investigations, the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York held last Thursday that the DOJ had improperly outsourced its investigation of LIBOR manipulation at Deutsche Bank (the Bank) to the Bank and its outside law firm. See United States v. Connolly, Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Defendant Gavin Black's Motion for Kastigar Relief, 16 Cr. 0370 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.) (Mem.). The level of the government's involvement in the Bank's "internal" investigation, combined with the absence of any meaningful independent investigative efforts by the DOJ, led Judge Colleen McMahon to find that the Bank and its counsel "were de facto the Government." Id. at 2. As such, statements made by defendant Black during interviews by outside counsel were unusable by the government at trial. Id. at 40. While the court declined to dismiss the indictment under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)—because the government had not improperly used Black's compelled statements to outside counsel—the Connolly decision has significant implications for the manner in which the government deals with companies and their counsel going forward. If the government exercises too much control over internal investigations, it could jeopardize individual criminal prosecutions in a number of respects. The decision also arguably gives companies a basis for resisting onerous government requests and attempts by the government to micromanage corporate investigations.

The 'Garrity' Ruling

In Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that statements obtained from an employee under threat of being fired by his government employer were "infected by coercion," and thus involuntary and inadmissible against them in a criminal trial. Id. at 49697. The Garrity rule applies equally where the conduct of a private employer in obtaining statements from an employee is "fairly attributable to the government." United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130, 152 n.

11 (2d Cir. 2008). The conduct of a private actor is attributable to the state if there is "a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action of the ... [private] entity [or person] so that action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." Jackson v. Metro. Edison. Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974).

Judge McMahon concluded that Black was "compelled" to participate in interviews conducted by counsel for the Bank, given that his choice was either to cooperate with the Bank's investigation or find a new job. Mem. 6-7, 21. The only remaining question was whether the investigatory steps that the Bank took with respect to Black were attributable to the government. The court held that they were, finding that the Bank's investigation was "neither voluntary nor internal ... ." Id. at 22.

To begin with, the impetus for the Bank's investigation was an April 2010 letter from the CFTC advising that it "expect[ed]" the Bank to "cooperate fully," in part by engaging "external counsel" to conduct "a full review" regarding the Bank's LIBOR practices, "and report on an on-going basis the results of that review ... ." Id. at 3. Judge McMahon found that "the CFTC's request that Deutsche Bank conduct a 'voluntary' investigation was a classic 'Godfather offer'— one that could not be refused." Id. at 26-27.

Judge McMahon catalogued a variety of additional facts and circumstances that, taken together, established that the Bank's investigatory steps with respect to Black were fairly attributable to the government. She found that the "federal agencies [involved in the LIBOR matter] gave considerable direction to the investigating ... [private] attorneys, both about what to do and about how to do it." Id. at 4. For example, the CFTC instructed the Bank to interview specific individuals, and to conduct follow-on interviews of others who were identified as having been involved in the Bank's LIBOR rate submissions. In addition, the court found that "[t] he Bank's first interview of Black was conducted at the behest of the Government." Id. at 4-6, 22-23. The government also "directed" one lawyer for the Bank "on the precise manner in which he should ask questions"— the lawyer was told to "approach [an employee] interview as if he were a prosecutor." Id. at 7, 23.

The judge also found that the Bank and its counsel "coordinated extensively" with the SEC, CFTC and DOJ, each of which was investigating LIBOR. At a minimum, outside counsel's interactions with the government included 230 phone calls and 30 in-person meetings. Id. at 4, 14. Counsel for the Bank conducted almost 200 interviews, and provided summaries of each to the government, often reporting in real time or on a weekly basis. Id. at 11, 15.

They also disclosed specific facts with respect to Black, including the manner in which he answered questions, the fact that he offered mostly exculpatory statements, and counsel's impression that Black did not want to be "helpful." All of these communications, Judge McMahon highlighted, took place "well before ... the government made any effort to speak with Black." Id. at 10, 12-13. Moreover, in addition to collecting and reviewing 158 million electronicdocuments and 850,000 audio files, and producing relevant materials, the Bank "digested the vast information it collected, highlighted the most important nuggets, and shared a blueprint [a white paper] for what prosecutors should expect should they finally interview Black on their own." Id. at 13-15, 23.

Significantly, Judge McMahon also pointed to what appeared to be the absence of investigative efforts by the government, finding that the government did virtually nothing to rebut Black's claim that the actions of the Bank and its counsel were fairly attributable to the government, despite ample opportunity to do so. What little the government did offer by way of rebuttal, the court found, was unpersuasive. Id. at 24-26, 28.

Judge McMahon concluded "that, rather than conduct its own investigation, the Government outsourced the important developmental stage of its investigation to" the Bank: outside counsel "did everything that the Government could, should, and would have done had the Government been doing its own work." Id. at 23-24. "The Government violated Garrity, because Deutsche Bank's interviews of Gavin Black, for which he was compelled to sit under threat of termination, are fairly attributable to the Government." Id. at 28-29.

The court in no way criticized the actions of the Bank or its counsel, recognizing that they rightly sought to obtain maximum possible cooperation credit. Id. at 14. Rather, Judge McMahon placed responsibility squarely at the government's doorstep.

The 'Kastigar' Ruling

Judge McMahon nonetheless denied Black's request for Kastigar relief because the government did not use Black's statements to outside counsel either before the grand jury or at trial. The government established an independent source for everything that the FBI Special Agent presented to the grand jury, and Black, during his belated proffer to the DOJ, told the government "everything" he had earlier told the Bank's lawyers. Id. at 40-43. To the extent the government may have relied upon outside counsel's initial interviews with Black to gain an understanding of LIBOR or identify evidence and leads, the court found that those actions were "merely tangential nonevidentiary uses" that do not violate Kastigar ... ." Id. at 42.

Key Takeaways

In the years following the credit crisis, there was a significant increase in the number and scope of internal investigations by private companies, often at the request of the government. The LIBOR and FX investigations are prime examples of that trend. Deutsche Bank's investigation of LIBOR rigging within its corporate ranks was the largest in the Bank's history, and the largest ever conducted by its outside counsel. Id. at 16. The level of involvement and direction provided by the government agencies involved— including civil enforcement bodies that bear little risk for micromanaging outside counsel's investigation because they cannot bring individual criminal prosecutions—may represent a high-water mark for government involvement in private internal investigations.

The implications of the Connolly decision go beyond the risk that the government may be unable to use the statements of a defendant made to outside counsel, or that charges may be dismissed due to Kastigar taint. The decision could also give rise to complicated pre-trial disclosure issues under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). If a private company or its outside counsel are found to have acted on behalf of the government in carrying out a corporate investigation, do prosecutors have an obligation under Brady to search the files of the company and the law firm for potentially exculpatory information? Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) (prosecutors have a duty to learn of and disclose exculpatory information "known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case") Would the government be forced to review possibly hundreds of detailed interview memos to ensure that all exculpatory statements are handed over? Any such obligation would, of course, be complicated by the fact that interview memoranda are typically afforded protection from disclosure under the work product doctrine and attorney client privilege. The simple solution is for the government to take a more hands-off approach to the internal investigations conducted by companies and their outside counsel, which would allow the government to receive the fruits of internal investigations without risking such negative consequences.

There is, of course, value in communicating with prosecutors to ensure that any internal investigation will focus on the areas of most interest to the government. Such discussions facilitate more targeted investigations and save corporate resources. The Connolly decision does not prevent that kind of dialogue—provided that the government relies on the judgment of outside counsel as to how to carry out the investigation, including when and how to conduct interviews and present findings to the government. In this regard, the ruling arguably gives outside counsel a basis to resist efforts by the government to micromanage internal investigations, since prosecutors will want to avoid arguments that outside counsel's investigation is "fairly attributable" to the government. It also underscores the need for companies to retain experienced counsel with the requisite knowledge and skill set to conduct robust internal investigations likely to satisfy the government and demonstrate a company's cooperation, without the need for detailed guidance from the government as to how to do so. It will also be interesting to see if the Connolly decision causes the government to take earlier investigative steps in parallel with a company's internal investigation, rather than waiting for the internal investigation to mature before conducting interviews. Companies and counsel may also receive more "de-confliction requests"—requests from the government that a company defer interviewing one or more employees until after the government has had an opportunity to do so.

This too will give rise to potentially complicated issues, since corporate boards and senior management have fundamental oversight and compliance responsibilities, and are expected (and incented) to ferret out and remediate corporate wrongdoing in a timely manner. This, of course, is not achievable if restrictions are placed on a company's ability to interview its own employees at the first sign of a problem (or if companies must worry that the government will frown upon, rather than reward, such proactivity).

In sum, while the Connolly decision highlights the risks for the government in outsourcing its investigative responsibilities and micromanaging outside counsel conducting internal investigations, by taking a more passive role the government can leverage the independent work of outside counsel and receive (and often use) the fruits of the internal investigation. It may also require the criminal authorities to work earlier and more closely with their civil counterparts to ensure that those regulators do not inject themselves too deeply into internal investigations where there is the potential for criminal prosecution of individuals. In some ways, the decision is a healthy wake-up call to government agencies to take care in the manner in which they communicate and interact with outside counsel representing companies that are seeking to obtain cooperation credit.

This article is previously published by New York Law Journal

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions