Human Rights Protection Agreements (DPA) are a mechanism that allows an organisation to avoid criminal prosecution by an agreement between it and the designated law enforcement authority (Section 45 and Annex 17, Crime and Courts Act 2013) (see feature article entitled « Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Moving into the unknown »). The DPA is conducted under the control of a judge and the court retains control of the outcome. It allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings for a specified period of time, provided that the organisation fulfils certain conditions. These conditions may include the payment of a fine, compensation, deduction of profits, implementation of a compliance program or modification of an existing program, cooperation with the investigation and payment of costs. DPAs apply to organizations and not individuals and can be used for fraud, corruption and other financial crimes. The behavior took place over several years and occurred globally. The real question was whether the interests of justice were best served by a DPA and not by legal proceedings. Dame Sharp decided that it was Airbus` exemplary collaboration, as well as the steps it had taken to change its corporate culture that justified the DPA. 11 « SFO enters into €991 million agreement with Airbus as part of an overall resolution of €3.6 billion », January 31, 2020 www.sfo.gov.uk/2020/01/31/sfo-enters-into-e991m-deferred-prosecution-agreement-with-airbus-as-part-of-a-e3-6bn-global-resolution/ Finally, the proceedings against SNC-Lavalin were initiated on December 18, 2019, after the Court of Quebec accepted an admission of guilt from a subsidiary subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin for a single fraud charge.19 As part of the transaction, SNC-Lavalin will pay a fine of CAD 280 million, will be subject to three years of probation, during this trial period will be independently monitored and will modify its ethics and compliance program20.
NC Lavalin also to escape a conviction, since all charges against the company have been withdrawn, thus avoiding exclusion from public procurement. These comparisons will cost Airbus a lot of money – and cause a lot of embarrassment – but the company will at least escape prosecution. The UK part of the deal also gives the Serious Fraud Office much-needed success. DPAs do not guarantee a subsequent conviction of a person. However, they offer an alternative to lengthy and costly corporate lawsuits, and the Airbus case seems to indicate that they will stay here. Criticism of DPAs has focused on their failure to bring individuals to justice. The acquittal of the three Tesco executives and three Sarclad staff members prosecuted is an example of this (see notice « Tesco Deferred Prosecution Agreements: Where Are We Related? »). I actively participated in the signing of the [Convention] in December 1997. I can tell you that in this sense, the term « national economic interest »] should prevent exporters from OECD countries from escaping prosecution under the Convention by claiming that exports are in the national economic interest – and that, therefore, bribes are necessary to protect their export markets. That is what the word « national » means there. I do not recall that jobs were ever discussed in the context of the national economic interest within the meaning of the Convention and that PPDs were never taken into account in the Convention. This isn`t the first DPA that has also struck separate deals with foreign prosecutors: Rolls Royce has also struck deals with U.S.
and Brazilian prosecutors.