☰ In this section

The Champion

September/October 2006 , Page 12 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Ray of Hope or Guilty Plea by Another Name?

By Joan McPhee

Prosecutors have turned increasingly to deferred prosecution agreements in recent years to resolve major corporate criminal disputes. But the name may promise more than the resolution delivers.

Over the last several decades, the arc of corporate criminal prosecutions has trended steadily and relentlessly toward ever more expansive corporate criminal liability and increasingly harsh, often draconian, punishment. The demise of the once- preeminent accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP stands as perhaps the paradigmatic example of both the breadth of corporate criminal liability — more than 95 percent of the firm’s employees had no involvement in the alleged misconduct that led to the firm’s indictment — and the severity of the potential punishment. Notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s subsequent reversal of Arthur Andersen’s conviction, the indictment alone effectively delivered a “corporate death sentence” to the firm, and Arthur Andersen in fact dissolved in the wake of the criminal

Want to read more?

The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.

NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.

Not a member? Join now.
Join Now
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.

See what NACDL members say about us.

To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.

  • Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or idominguez@nacdl.org
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.
Advertisement Advertise with Us

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us