Richard L. Cassin Publisher and Editor

Andy Spalding Senior Editor

Jessica Tillipman Senior Editor

Elizabeth K. Spahn Editor Emeritus

Cody Worthington Contributing Editor

Julie DiMauro Contributing Editor

Thomas Fox Contributing Editor

Marc Alain Bohn Contributing Editor

Bill Waite Contributing Editor

Shruti J. Shah Contributing Editor

Russell A. Stamets Contributing Editor

Richard Bistrong Contributing Editor 

Eric Carlson Contributing Editor

Bill Steinman Contributing Editor

Aarti Maharaj Contributing Editor

FCPA Blog Daily News

« Looking for the next enforcement target | Main | These guys make it look easy and fun »

Deferred prosecution agreements: part of the problem or part of the solution? 

Last week, Assistant AG Lanny A. Breuer, left, head of the DOJ's criminal division, talked about the use and benefits of deferred prosecution agreements in corporate enforcement actions.

Not everyone liked Breuer's explanation.

But we did.

DPAs don't stack the deck in favor of the DOJ. Respondeat superior does that.

DPAs instead help the DOJ and corporate defendants move forward to resolve criminal activity by employees and agents that's attributed to the company. 

Respondeat superior is an extreme doctrine. The DOJ didn't invent it but has to live with it, as do corporate defendants.

So finding ways to soften respondeat superior is a good thing.

Fixing it -- through a good-faith defense -- would be better.

But until that happens, DPAs look like the best option.

*     *     *

Here's what Breuer said.

His substantive remarks start at 7:30 on the clip.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.