The Department of Justice announced an aggressive plan for going after white-collar crime

Sharing is Caring!

by I_DO_ANIMAL_THINGS

The Department of Justice announced an aggressive plan for going after white-collar crime. In such a way that makes sure to get top level, repeat offenders and stop companies from policing themselves.

SAUCE: www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-o-monaco-gives-keynote-address-abas-36th-national-institute

They’re going after C Suite, CEO’s, CFO’s….

The first announcement: augments our efforts to ensure individual accountability. To hold individuals accountable, prosecutors first need to know the cast of characters involved in any misconduct. To that end, today I am directing the department to restore prior guidance making clear that to be eligible for any cooperation credit, companies must provide

the department with all non-privileged information about individuals involved in or responsible for the misconduct at issue. To be clear, a company must identify all individuals involved in the misconduct, regardless of their position, status or seniority.

No more repeat offender, pay-to-play.

The second change: I am announcing today deals with the issue of a company’s prior misconduct and how that affects our decisions about the appropriate corporate resolution.Today, the department is making clear that all prior misconduct needs to be evaluated when it comes to decisions about the proper resolution with a company, whether or not that misconduct is similar to the conduct at issue in a particular investigation. That record of misconduct speaks directly to a company’s overall commitment to compliance programs and the appropriate culture to disincentivize criminal activity.To that end, today I am issuing new guidance to prosecutors regarding what historical misconduct needs to be evaluated when considering corporate resolutions. This will include an amendment to the Department’s “Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations.” Going forward, prosecutors will be directed to consider the full criminal, civil and regulatory record of any company when deciding what resolution is appropriate for a company that is the subject or target of a criminal investigation.

No More “Self-Regulation”

The final change: I am announcing today deals with the use of corporate monitors. Stepping back, any resolution with a company involves a significant amount of trust on the part of the government. Trust that a corporation will commit itself to improvement, change its corporate culture, and self-police its activities. But where the basis for that trust is limited or called into question, we have other options. Independent monitors have long been a tool to encourage and verify compliance. In recent years, some have suggested that monitors would be the exception and not the rule. To the extent that prior Justice Department guidance suggested that monitorships are disfavored or are the exception, I am rescinding that guidance. Instead, I am making clear that the department is free to require the imposition of independent monitors whenever it is appropriate to do so in order to satisfy our prosecutors that a company is living up to its compliance and disclosure obligations under the DPA or NPA.

The whole this is worth a read but here is her summary:

I’m sure many of you in the audience are going to get calls from clients over the next few days with questions about what this all means. So, let me conclude by giving you the answers — with these five points: Companies need to actively review their compliance programs to ensure they adequately monitor for and remediate misconduct — or else it’s going to cost them down the line.For clients facing investigations, as of today, the department will review their whole criminal, civil and regulatory record — not just a sliver of that record.For clients cooperating with the government, they need to identify all individuals involved in the misconduct — not just those substantially involved — and produce all non-privileged information about those individuals’ involvement.For clients negotiating resolutions, there is no default presumption against corporate monitors. That decision about a monitor will be made by the facts and circumstances of each case.Looking to the future, this is a start — and not the end — of this administration’s actions to better combat corporate crime.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

See also  ITALY: Vaxx researcher who claimed he was going to European courts over what he found in the vials found dead
See also  White House Says They’re Best Job Creator Ever, Quickly Get Savaged Online

I anticipate comments about how it’s too little too late, or we can’t trust anyone to help, or everyone is corrupt. I would hope before you leave such a comment you will have already contacted your representatives and let THEM know you’re involved and aware of the bullshit.

On that same token, I hope you also contact the people who ARE helping to express your support. Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco

 

815 views

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.