Legitimacy and integrity of the DPA regime: a new perspective on the US from the UK

<p>Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) are agreements between prosecutors and companies that suspend a prosecution while the company undertakes specific measures, such as paying a fine, compensating victims, effectuating corporate reforms, and wholly cooperating with the investigation. The use of DPAs in the United States has been criticized, however, because it has become a settlement mechanism that is easy to get but does not serve to prevent future crimes. When a law agency enters a DPA, this act may cast doubt on the validity of the agency’s investigative powers and questions whether these DPAs are in the interests of justice. This in turn has cast doubt on the purpose for which companies enter into DPAs and even on the viability and integrity of the DPA system. According to this study, there are two primary reasons for these questions about the validity of DPAs. First, the financial penalties of DPAs are usually insufficient to deter future violations. In addition to fines, policymakers need to increase personal accountability and induce companies to self-report. Second, in granting DPAs, US prosecutors are given excessive discretion to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury, a model that undermines the basic rule of law principle, separation of powers. The absence of substantive judicial oversight, for instance, has led to some unconscionable DPAs being granted. While the US is the architect of the DPA regime and has the most experience using it, the United Kingdom has the most developed DPA regime outside of the United States. In fact, this dissertation finds that the UK DPA regime can provide its US equivalent with valuable improvements for use and enforcement of DPAs that may validate US law agency by actually serving the purpose of deterring future crimes. This thesis therefore focuses on the UK DPA regime in an effort to improve the legitimacy and integrity of the US DPA system.</p>

Name thesis:degree_name

Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD)

Level thesis:degree_level

Dissertation

Year dc:date.available

2024

Author dc:creator

• Zhou, Yuan

Contributors dc:contributor

• Professor Danielle D'Onfro, Professor Peter Joy, Professor Rebecca Mitchell

• Dual Prosecution Agreements, United Kingdom, United States, corporate law
• Commercial Law
• Law
• Legal Studies

Language dc:language

English

Repository record dc:identifier

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_etds/98

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:openscholarship.wustl.edu:law_etds-1097