Lawmakers Seek More Details on Deferred Prosecutions

Source: House Judiciary

May 22, 2008
Melanie Roussell (Conyers)
Michael Torra (Sánchez)
Caley Gray (Pascrell)



(Washington, DC) - Last week, the United States Justice Department sent 85 deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, and a list of corporate monitors selected in 41 of the agreements, to the House Judiciary Committee. Today, Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law), and Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) expressed the need for full disclosure about the agreements, and possibly legislation to set stricter guidelines for how corporate monitors are selected and how the agreements are structured. The lawmakers previously requested the information in January.

"This marks a good first step in the process to learning more about the department's use of deferred prosecution agreements," Conyers said. "However, we know there to be at least 12 other publicly available agreements that the department did not include, which leaves us to wonder whether there are many more private agreements that we have not yet seen. It is my hope that the department will fully cooperate with us, and with the GAO, in our efforts to understand the need for these agreements and the use of the high-priced monitors."

The committee has examined the department's use, award and implementation of contracts by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to outside entities for the monitoring of compliance with out-of-court settlement and deferred prosecution agreements in criminal investigations. The committee held a hearing in March, during which former Attorney General John Ashcroft testified about his corporate monitoring contract. Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also requested a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the subject in January.

"I am pleased that the Justice Department made this step toward disclosing its use of deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements and corporate monitors," said Sánchez. "However, the delay and lack of completeness in this disclosure underscore why we need legislation to establish clear guidelines and transparency."

Pascrell, who requested in a November 26, 2007 letter that the Judiciary Committee hold hearings to investigate deferred prosecutions agreements stated, “The Department of Justice has made great efforts to shield deferred prosecution agreements from the light of public scrutiny. It is due to the committee’s work that the department has finally felt the pressure to begin sharing these documents. Unfortunately we know that many remain undisclosed and many critical questions remain unanswered. I have always felt it necessary for Congress to oversee the little-known deferred prosecution process and will continue working with the House Judiciary Committee to craft comprehensive legislation that will finally bring some accountability to this issue.”

DOJ released 85 full deferred prosecution agreements, available here. The Department's cover letter includes a list of the monitors it uses, many of which were not previously known. The full text of the letter with the list of monitors is available here.





Read more: http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=978

New DOJ Policy: Just Call it the Christopher Christie Amendment
Sue Reisinger
Corporate Counsel
May 21, 2008

Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & Permissions

U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie
image: Carmen Natale/NJLJ
You can probably thank U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie of New Jersey for the latest addition to the U.S. Department of Justice's policy manual. The change will end certain deals like the one Christie reached with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in which the drug company, among other things, agreed to establish a business ethics chair at Christie's old law school.

In a memo <.pdf> dated May 14, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip told government prosecutors to avoid requiring a defendant to pay a third party unrelated to the defendant’s criminal conduct "because it can create actual or perceived conflicts of interest and/or other ethical issues."

The policy change affects plea agreements as well as deferred and nonprosecution agreements. Such agreements should not, the new policy states, require "the defendant to pay funds to a charitable, educational, community, or other organization or individual that is not a victim of the criminal activity or is not providing services to redress the harm caused by the defendant's criminal conduct."

Neither Filip's memo nor the new policy mention Christie's 2005 deal with Bristol Myers, which critics attacked at the time as a conflict of interest. Christie negotiated the deferred prosecution agreement when the company admitted committing securities fraud. Bristol Myers agreed to meet nearly 20 pages of demands, including paying penalties and hiring a monitor.

more:http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421573691