Rick, as usual, that`s what you are. A correction — we know that PPPs work in other laws where Americans have influenced anti-corruption methods. For example, the Republic of Georgia under Saakashvili fell in love with American-style advocacy. See TI Georgia`s 2010 report: www.transparency.ge/sites/default/files/post_attachments/Plea%20Bargaining%20in%20Georgia%20-%20Negotiated%20Justice.pdf largely positive. But the problem persists with all its efficiency gains – DPAs can be misused. In Georgia, there have been accusations that DPAs are a means of extorting money from organized criminals in a very opaque way. At present, our Georgian friends and the United States have introduced DPAs into Ukraine – where they could be abused or could help resolve the backlog of corruption cases. Let`s see how beef and broccoli end, but I also have doubts. The public prosecutor may set a maximum period of one year to verify compliance with the conditions laid down in the agreement. The agreement must be approved by the court. The purpose of cooperation or leniency agreements is to deter, punish and correct the behaviour of companies, while limiting the collateral consequences of an indictment or conviction of an enterprise, such as the loss of a license, the loss of state benefits and the limitation of transactions with public entities. In the United States, prosecutors are increasingly using different types of cooperation agreements, such as. B deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPA).
DPAs and NPPs allow legal entities to avoid prosecution against the authorities as long as they comply with the terms of the agreement, but under a DPA, the government files a criminal complaint with the court (the information and the agreement itself are filed and must be approved by the court), while nothing is filed or approved by the court in an NPC. In these agreements, the accused pleads guilty to certain charges and undertakes to cooperate with the authorities. In return, the Amf rejects any other charges or issues a watered-down judgment. Leniency agreements provided for by law have certain characteristics in common with data protection obligations. Both are preliminary agreements to fight corruption, punish and correct corporate misconduct, and defendants must plead guilty and commit to cooperate, preserve the integrity of the legal person, demand certain mandatory remedies, etc., but leniency agreements do not in principle provide for any dismissal of the charge. Today, the U.S. Attorney`s Office for the Eastern District of New York filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn federal court in which Torneos y Competencias S.A. (Torneos), a South American sports marketing company, is charged with conspiracy to wire fraud in connection with the company`s longtime involvement in an international football corruption plan. . . .