Deferred prosecution agreements — definitive guidelines and code of conduct
Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), the government’s newest weapon in the fight against corporate crime, become available to prosecutors from 24 February 2014. They will widen the scope for enforcement against companies and corporate entities involved in fraud, money laundering, bribery and corruption. On 14 February 2014, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the director of public prosecutions published a joint code of practice on their use of DPAs, which supplements the recently published Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline on fraud, bribery and money laundering for corporate offenders. The government announced plans to introduce DPAs in October 2012 and they were given their statutory footing in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which received royal assent in April 2013. In the summer of 2013, there followed an extensive consultation exercise that has resulted in the publication of the code.
A DPA is a public, voluntary and transparent agreement between a prosecutor and an organisation whereby prosecution for alleged economic crimes can be deferred if certain conditions are met. If an organisation admits wrongdoing, a DPA would still mean criminal charges being laid but the proceedings would be automatically suspended pending compliance with stringent conditions, which will be agreed between the parties and subject to approval by the judiciary. Conditions may include disgorgement of profits, payment of fines, compensation for victims, co-operation in any prosecution of individuals and implementation of a compliance programme, if necessary with a monitor appointed. Unequivocal co-operation by the corporate is essential. If the conditions are not met, the prosecution will be resumed. Neither the code nor the guidelines seek to dissuade prosecutors prosecuting where the public interest would not be served by entering into a DPA. However, it is hoped that their use in appropriate circumstances can help to mitigate some of the collateral damage caused to shareholders and employees when a company is convicted of a criminal offence by the courts — for example if the business is wound up…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Eversheds briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Eversheds
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Eversheds
Mercedes-Benz fined $57m for price-fixing.
Anti-money laundering measure means reporting more to the state.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Eversheds is no stranger to an international tie-up but now it’s in the market for the jewel in its global crown
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all