First, we all - even the rabid rightwingers posting in this newsgroup - have   
   to know what the DPA agreements are - and what they do in place of just   
   ordinary criminal convictions.   
      
   Is it better that a white collar type spend his days in a prison, cleaning   
   floors and toilets - or for him and his company to take millions out of their   
   profits and personal assets - to make things right for those they   
   defrauded/harmed?   
   ______________________   
   Sep 19, 2018   
      
   Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) come into force in Canada   
      
   On September 19, 2018, amendments to Criminal Code came into force   
   establishing for the first time a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) regime   
   for corporate wrongdoing in Canada.   
      
   The new regime – labeled “remediation agreements” under the legislation   
   – will finally make available to Canadian authorities DPAs, a commonly-used   
   compliance tool in jurisdictions such as the U.S. and U.K. which has until now   
   been unavailable in    
   Canada.   
      
      
   Purpose of DPAs   
      
   A DPA is an agreement entered into between a prosecutor and a company alleged   
   to have engaged in economic crimes.  The effect of the DPA is to suspend the   
   outstanding prosecution while simultaneously establishing specified   
   undertakings that the    
   organization must fulfill in order to avoid facing the potential criminal   
   charges.   
      
   These undertakings often include fines, remediation measures, enhanced   
   reporting requirements or allowing for independent third-party oversight of   
   corporations compliance techniques.  Once the accused company has fulfilled   
   the terms of the DPA the    
   charges will be dropped.   
      
   Authorities in countries such as the U.S. and U.K. actively utilize DPAs to   
   reduce corporate criminal behavior.   
      
   DPA regimes help to encourage the voluntary disclosure of misconduct by   
   corporations for criminal activities that may otherwise have remained unknown   
   to regulators, while simultaneously denouncing wrongdoing by holding   
   organizations accountable for their    
   actions. By entering into a DPA, a company can avoid criminal conviction while   
   abiding by strict undertakings that make the organization a better corporate   
   citizen.   
      
      
   Implementation of the regime   
      
   The incoming remediation agreement regime, which was created following   
   consultations held by the government toward the end of 2017, will for the   
   first time establish the availability of DPAs in Canada.   
      
   To be eligible for a remediation agreement under the regime, the accused must   
   be an organization other than a public body (e.g., a government department), a   
   trade union or a municipality.  The remediation agreement can only be entered   
   into for economic    
   offenses, such as bribery or fraud, and not for crimes that result in death or   
   bodily injury,  or for conduct that violates the Canadian Competition Act.   
      
   In order for the prosecutor to enter into negotiations for a remediation   
   agreement, the following conditions must be met:   
      
   ~    There is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence;   
   ~    The impugned conduct did not cause serious bodily harm or death or injury   
   to national defence or national security, and was not committed for the   
   benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal   
   organization or terrorist group;   
   ~    Negotiating the agreement must be in the public interest and appropriate   
   in the circumstances; and   
   *~    The Attorney General must consent to the negotiation of the agreement. *   
      
   Prosecutors will consider a number of factors when deciding whether to   
   negotiate a remediation agreement, including:   
      
   ~    the circumstances in which the offence was brought to the attention of   
   investigative authorities;   
   ~    the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact on any victim;   
   ~    the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization;   
   ~    whether the organization has taken disciplinary action, including   
   termination of employment, against any person involved;   
   ~    whether the organization has made reparations, or taken other measures to   
   remedy the harm caused and to prevent the commission of similar acts or   
   omissions;   
   ~    whether the organization has identified or expressed a willingness to   
   identify any person involved in related wrongdoing;   
   ~    whether the organization — or any of its representati   
   es — was convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body, or   
   whether it entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement,   
   in Canada or elsewhere, for    
   similar conduct;   
   ~    whether the organization — or any of its representatives — is   
   alleged to have committed any other offences; and   
   ~    any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant.   
      
   As well, the corporation would need to:   
      
   ~    accept responsibility for, and stop, their wrongdoing;   
   ~    pay a financial penalty;   
   ~    relinquish any benefit gained from the wrongdoing;   
   ~    put in place or enhance compliance measures; and   
   ~    make reparation to victims, including overseas victims, as appropriate.   
      
   Remediation agreements under the regime must be approved by a judge, who must   
   be satisfied that the agreement is in the public interest, and the terms of   
   the agreement are fair, reasonable and proportionate.   
      
   Going forward under the regime   
      
   The new regime establishes an important tool for Canadian regulatory bodies,   
   the availability of which is to the benefit of both enforcement authorities   
   and companies accused of corporate wrongdoing. In particular, the regime   
   provides added incentive for    
   companies to proactively self-report wrongdoing.   
      
   Companies should maintain rigorous compliance programs, including internal   
   whistleblower reporting systems, and should actively investigate any   
   allegations in order to determine the veracity thereof and whether to report   
   such conduct to regulators.     
      
   Companies should seek advice from external counsel both during the   
   investigation and in determining whether to self-report any given allegation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)