We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On 17 May 2012 the Ministry of Justice
("MoJ") launched a consultation on plans
to introduce a new means of resolving criminal cases in England and
Wales: the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), together with
Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs), have been used in the United
States for years as a way of resolving criminal cases. They allow
corporates to reach an agreed outcome with the authorities as a
result of wrongdoing, which either the corporate has discovered
itself and reported to the authorities or which the authorities
have become aware of and are investigating. Depending on the
nature and seriousness of the offences involved and also depending
on the level of cooperation by the corporate, the authorities may
agree not to prosecute the offences if the corporate accepts
certain penalties and conditions. Such agreements are made
with very limited judicial involvement (or no involvement at all in
the case of NPAs).
The MoJ's proposal for the introduction of DPAs in England
& Wales, which initially will only be available for corporate
offenders, is based on the US model, but seeks to incorporate a far
greater level of judicial involvement and oversight in the process,
ultimately requiring judicial blessing before a DPA can be agreed.
NPAs are not proposed for England and Wales.
DPAs are intended to provide a tool to prosecutors that will
encourage corporates to cooperate, by giving them meaningful credit
for voluntarily disclosing their conduct and cooperating with the
authorities. This should allow for swifter and more effective
outcomes and for more corporate offending to be brought to light
and dealt with at less cost and with the use of fewer resources
than would be required if traditional routes were followed.
Under a DPA, a prosecution will be "suspended" on
condition that the corporate complies with various requirements
which can range from any or all of: financial penalties;
compensation for victims; disgorgement of the profits of
wrongdoing; and measures to prevent future reoffending or to
"rehabilitate" the company by imposing reporting
requirements, governance improvements or an independent monitor for
an agreed period of time. The terms of the DPA would be publicly
available once approved in open court. Should the conditions not be
observed within the life of the DPA (likely one to three years),
the prosecutor can then resuscitate proceedings.
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron
McKenna's free online information service. To register for
Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance
only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now
articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to
give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates
to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication
and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent
developments.
The original publication date for this article was
xx/xx/xxxx.
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.
The right of a person to discuss certain matters with their lawyer, no matter how nefarious, without fear of their confidence being broken is one that has been recognised since the 16th Century.
The ramifications for those found to be in civil contempt (as presided over by the High Court), and, in particular, the court’s power to enforce such a finding against a contemnor who resides overseas, are more far reaching than many (civil) lawyers realise.
The Bribery Act has made the news again following the conviction of a would be taxi driver. Earlier this week, at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester, Mr Mawia Mushtaq became the second person convicted of an offence under the Bribery Act by attempting to bribe a Licensing Officer.
In the previous edition of Corporate Focus we reported that the Bribery Act 2010 (the Bribery Act) came into force on 1 July 2011 and we considered procedures that commercial organisations could put into place in order to prevent bribery.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
