According to U.S. Legal, the definition of Deferred Prosecutions is an informal agreement between the defense lawyer, the defendant, and the prosecutor to dismiss a case up front, that is, in advance of the accused agreeing to some concessions. Terms generally involve needing to pay a fine/penalty, assurance to improve internal practices, and cooperation with any specific investigation. We have all seen this tactic used in real life (HSBC) and in fictitious television series if you’re an avid Law and Order fan; cutting a deal so to speak for lesser charges.
A significant advantage of this particular tactic is that there is no need for judicial intervention. In result the Department of Justice (DOJ) does not have any concerns regarding a judge’s fairness of resolve or anticipating its judgment.
I believe there are more disadvantages than advantages when it comes to DPA’s for corporations. It has become a commonplace for corporations now to use this strategy. It seems to me that this promotes unfairness, double standards, and gross abuse of power with respect to using this for corporations. DPAs make it appear that companies are essentially buying their way out of prosecution. Due to the fact that DPAs resolutions to matters do not require trials, jury, appellate courts, or establish judicial precedents, clear boundaries cannot be made in regards to permissible legal comportment. DPAs deliver a beneficial and dynamic tool to quickly, cheaply, and efficiently dispose of cases involving low-level, first-time offenders of misdemeanor crimes. Undoubtedly, DPAs were neither considered nor anticipated for the potentially serious criminal law involving urbane corporate individuals and the white collar professionals engaged in running those entities. I do believe that corporations should be responsible of misconduct of high ranked officials who manage and are responsible