Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T11:21:15.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2014

Rena Steinzor
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, Baltimore
Get access

Summary

Whether the [DOJ] needs a middle ground between prosecution and declination [of a case] is far from clear. … The evolution of the Justice Department’s approach to deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, however, is best described as a policy in search of a rationale.

David Uhlmann, former chief, DOJ Environmental Crimes Section

Corporations suffer a peculiar vulnerability. The rules of criminal liability allow federal and state prosecutors to unduly punish those corporations that fall within their crosshairs. But the recent emergency of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) to force major changes in corporate governance should give pause to even the most ardent populist.

Richard Epstein, Professor, New York University Law School

What has intensified under your watch is a pervasive system of double standards: tough criminal penalties and lifetime stigma for individual street criminals, but second (and third chances) for corporate criminals that promise to do better in the future. The double standard is all the worse because it contradicts and undermines the basic purposes of the criminal justice system – deterrence and punishment – for the very actors for whom such objectives make the most sense. Because corporations coldly calculate costs and benefits – undertaking careful and detailed risk assessments as a fundamental part of their intentional decision-making process – they are most likely to be responsive to hard-hitting penalties, not fines easily integrated and transferred into the “cost of doing business.”

Ralph Nader, founder, and Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen
Type
Chapter
Information
Why Not Jail?
Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance, and Government Inaction
, pp. 253 - 276
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Uhlmann, David, Deferred Prosecution and Non-prosecution Agreements and the Erosion of Corporate Criminal Liability, 72 Md. L. Rev.1295, 1315 (2013)Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A., The Deferred Prosecution Racket, Wall St. J., Nov. 28, 2006, Google Scholar
Garrett, Brandon L. & Ashley, Jon, Federal Organizational Prosecution Agreements, University of Virginia School of Law, (last visited Apr. 21, 2014)Google Scholar
Brickey, Kathleen F., Corporate Criminal Liability: A Primer for Corporate Counsel, 40 Bus. Law.129 (1984)Google Scholar
Emshwiller, John R., Power Failure: The Rise and Fall of Enron, 1 Reynolds Ct. & Media L.J.3 (2011)Google Scholar
Johnson, Carrie, Ebbers Gets 25-Year Sentence for Role in WorldCom Fraud, Wash. Post, July 14, 2005, Google Scholar
Brickey, Kathleen F., Andersen’s Fall from Grace, 81 Wash. L.Q.917 (2003)Google Scholar
Markoff, Gabriel, Arthur Andersen and the Myth of the Corporate Death Penalty: Corporate Criminal Convictions in the Twenty-First Century, 15 U. Pa. J. Bus. L.707 (2013)Google Scholar
Kelly, James, The Power of an Indictment and the Demise of Arthur Andersen, 48 S. Tex. L. Rev.509 (2006)Google Scholar
Brown, Ken & Dugan, Ianthe Jeanne, Arthur Andersen’s Fall from Grace is a Sad Tale of Greed and Miscues, Wall St. J., June 2, 2002, Google Scholar
Repeat Offender Gets Stiff Justice (Sept. 2002), are available at
Destruction of Enron-Related Documents by Andersen Personnel: Hearing Before the House Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 107th Cong. 16 (2002)
Oppel, Richard A. & Eichenwald, Kurt, Enron’s Collapse: The Overview; Arthur Andersen Fires an Executive for Enron Orders, N.Y. Times, Jan. 16, 2002, Google Scholar
Eichenwald, Kurt, Andersen Misread Depths of Government’s Anger, N.Y. Times, Mar. 18, 2002, Google Scholar
Eichenwald, Kurt, Enron’s Many Strands: The Investigation; S.E.C. Had Sought $500 Million in Failed Talks with Andersen, N.Y. Times, Mar. 20, 2002, Google Scholar
Hays, Kristen, Andersen Pleads Not Guilty and Hopes for a Speedy Trial, Deseret News, Mar. 20, 2002, Google Scholar
Schwartz, John, Arthur Andersen Employees Circle the Wagons, N.Y. Times, Mar. 22, 2002, Google Scholar
Markoff, Gabriel, Arthur Andersen and the Myth of the Corporate Death Penalty: Corporate Criminal Convictions in the Twenty-First Century, 15 U. Pa. J. Bus. L.797 (2013)Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard, The Deferred Prosecution Racket, Wall St. J., Nov. 28, 2006Google Scholar
Eisinger, Jesse, Why the SEC Won’t Hunt Big Dogs, The Trade: ProPublica (Oct. 26, 2011), Google Scholar
Schmidt, Michael S. & Wyatt, Edward, Fraud Cases Often Spare Individuals, N.Y. Times, Aug. 7, 2012, at B1Google Scholar
Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (Mar. 6, 2013) (transcript of testimony of Att’y Gen. Eric Holder), available at
Transcript: Attorney General Eric Holder on “Too Big to Jail,” The American Banker (Mar. 6, 2013)
Editorial, Too Big to Indict, N.Y. Times, Dec. 11, 2012,
Corso, Regina A., Large Majority of Americans Favor Tougher Regulation of Wall Street, Harris Polls (May 10, 2012), Google Scholar
Gongkoff, Mark, Eric Holder: Actually I Mean to Say No Banks Are Too Big to Jail, Huffington Post (May 15, 2013), Google Scholar
Vlasic, Bill & Apuzzo, Matt, Toyota Is Fined $1.2 Billion for Concealing Safety Defects, N.Y. Times, Mar. 19, 2014, Google Scholar
Kocieniewski, David, In Testy Exchange in Congress, Christie Defends His Record as a Prosecutor, N.Y. Times, June 26, 2009, Google Scholar
Ward, Ken, Goodwin Praises Alpha for “Great Strides” Addressing Problems it Inherited from Massey Energy, Coal Tattoo (June 15, 2012), Google Scholar
Garrett, Brandon, Structural Reform Prosecution, 93 Va. L. Rev.853 (2007)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×