Deferred
Prosecution Agreements have been covered by a sizeable number of firms for
example all
of
these
hyperlinks
link
to
some
summary
or
another.
The scheme itself is relatively straightforward. A DPA is a negotiated
agreement whereby a company agrees to abide by punitive terms in return for the
suspension (and ultimate termination) of criminal proceedings. There is no
criminal conviction. The terms will generally include a fine, set at a level “broadly
comparable” to that on a guilty plea. They are now available to prosecutors,
and there is Code of guidance for them.
There are
two things that I am interested in. One is a practitioner’s concern, the other
very much an academic one.
Practically
speaking, the issue of “privilege” is not well dealt with in the Code.
(Privilege is the (fundamental) right, in the legal proceedings, not to
divulge certain information, usually and especially communications with
lawyers.) The Code only says that the law on privilege is unchanged. However,
the Director of the Serious Fraud Office has said
publically (and erroneously) that “The Code… lists factors which militate…
towards a DPA. These include… a waiver of privilege”. Such a factor is
decidedly not listed in the Code, and it is worrying to expect corporates
to waive privilege. Particularly as corporates will be worried about what
happens to the privileged material if and when DPA negotiations break down.
But my
real interest is how DPAs play into the differential treatment of corporates
and individuals. DPAs are a negotiable way out of criminal proceedings. If
companies are allowed them, why not individuals? In fact, why are corporates
allowed them at all? Is it a good thing that companies can get them, or are the
authorities, as the esteemed FCPA
professor blog puts it, really just saying that it is too hard to prove
criminal conduct, they cannot be bothered, and they’ll satisfy themselves with
a quasi-criminal compromise?
Moreover,
the DPA scheme looks to use corporate DPAs as a tool to secure individuals’
convictions. Once a DPA is agreed with a corporate, the prosecutor can merrily
prosecute the executives involved. There may be a moral basis for this, but it
is not explained or codified. The best explanation, I think, would be the idea
that criminal bad behaviour really only makes sense from an individualistic
point of view. People do bad things; companies only do bad things when their
people do bad things. Those people are the correct objects of scorn. But that
can only take us so far, because if it is true, why bother with DPAs at all? Ought
we then just have the companies cooperate with the punishment of the
individuals?