New Report: Continued Rise and Uncertain Future of Deferred Prosecution Agreements

The DOJ pursued corporate settlements aggressively last year, but the new administration might—and should—roll back the practice

NEW YORK, NY – Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements—settlements by which corporations agree to large fines and government-mandated changes in business practices in order to avoid prosecution for alleged crimes—have become increasingly common in the United States. Payouts in such settlements totaled more than $4.6 billion last year alone.

A new report by the Manhattan Institute’s James R. Copland and Rafael A. Mangual highlights the scope of and problems with such agreements, which often include DOJ-imposed changes to business practices. While Attorney General Sessions has ended the Obama-era practice of including payments to third parties in such settlements, other practices still remain on the table, such as the placement of a “corporate monitor” at the company. Such monitors receive a salary from the corporation involved in the settlement, but report back to the federal government. Last year, more than half of settlements included a corporate monitor.

The authors argue that if the new administration is serious about rolling back federal regulation, it must examine the regulatory powers the DOJ is exercising through DPAs and NPAs. This is the fifth report in a series on the rise of such agreements.

Click here to read the full report.