Judicial Oversight of Deferred Prosecution Agreements

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Greetings:

    This is a VERY important proposal and should be widely circulated. Politicians should be asked to express their positions on the issue. Writing on Blogs without major follow-up actions unfortunately mislead people into believing that they have taken meaningful action.

    I would think that other persons or organizations may have advanced similar ideas, but they have not tapped the outrage that citizens have over various bailouts, the use of ‘perma-temps (as reported about Nissan on NPR’ today), and tax avoidance strategies by “legal persons”)..

    There are situations where the U.S. government enters into agreements with corporations and individuals where the latter agree to pay fines while denying any wrongdoing on their behalf should also be revisited. The U.S, government is under-resourced and litigation outcomes unpredictable.

    Fines are often viewed as the “cost of doing business.” Corporations (their officers and directors) usually make a business agreement to pay the fine to avoid litigation costs, preserving their reputations, avoiding operational disruption, or exposing themselves to liability to other third parties. While this corporate behavior is understandable, it reduces the incentives for them to observe relevant legislation, regulations and rules. This is bad public policy.

    Perhaps, judges also be required to approve such situations. A prohibition on the denial of wrongdoing by an alleged violator might be contained in specific items of legislation, regulations, or other rules at both the federal and state levels.

    The obstacles to class action and shareholder lawsuits are great. Should not there be some discussion about leveling the playing-field?

    Regards.

  1. February 12, 2015

    […] A federal judge rejects a slap-on-the-wrist deal with a corporation that made $21 million from illegal transactions with Iran… more>> […]