In accordance with the agreement, which has a duration of three years, the distributor has consented to an annual independent audit of its activities and books as well as an independent review for the duration of the agreement.  The distributor has also agreed to take corrective action, including training staff in ethics and changing its policies and procedures regarding the integrity of its company-wide ethics and compliance program.  The DOJ (Division) Agreements Department recently announced a significant policy change – which we discussed in detail here – that will allow non-lenient businesses to apply for reduced loans as part of a criminal investigation of cartels when the company had a robust and effective compliance program at the time of the fault. In a speech on July 11, 20191, Deputy Attorney General Delrahim announced that, with immediate effect, the department would now allow its prosecutors to investigate the misconduct of a deferred law enforcement agreement (DPA) when a company`s compliance program is designed to prevent, detect and correct criminal wrongdoing by its employees, and if the company itself reports wrongdoing to the department. The possibility of avoiding criminal prosecution is good news for companies that are losing the race for leniency. But what are data protection authorities? What do they need? And how could they work in the division? In accordance with the five-year data statement, it will provide the SFO with annual reports on the implementation of its compliance program and the payment of gross profit of $2,069,861 (approximately $2.5 million) over the life of the agreement.  Although the conduct resulted in a potential fine of $4 million (approximately $5.2 million), the Southwark Crown Court found that a fine equal to that amount “or any sum close to it would cause GSL to take GSL out of the case.”  Thus, the Dpa imposed no financial consequences other than compensation paid on a flexible schedule. In deciding to allow the unpunished DPA, the Crown Court found that (1) the management of the company had completely changed, (2) the corrupt payments managers were no longer linked to the company, (3) the current management cooperated fully, (4) G-ralp had committed no criminal conduct before or otherwise; (5) He investigated and self-reported wrongdoing, and (6) the majority of the staff of Goralp were innocent and did not deserve to be expelled from the activity because of the behaviour of a small number of former senior managers.  The Crown Court also examined the singularity of the seismic expertise of Goralp and noted that if general was removed from its activities by a fine it could not pay, its closure would have “some adverse effects on agencies around the world”.  For more analysis of this agreement, click here.
 Press release, UK Serious Fraud Office, SFO, concluding a 991 million euro agreement with Airbus on the delay of 991 million euros in a global resolution amounting to 3.6 billion euros (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/ (hereafter the “Airbus SFO press release”).  It is striking to note that this year, none of the 17 companies that conducted DOJ investigations with NPAs and DGP voluntarily disclosed the allegations of misconduct, and only two companies – both runaways with abnormally extantuating circumstances – did not receive an ANPA. Among the outliers is Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC (“AIS”), whose NPA referred to the fact that: that AIS`s profits are directly intended to support Native American shareholders, who are residents or descendants of Alaska Native villages, who are economically highly disadvantaged, see non-prosecution agreement, Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC (June 8, 2020), 1 (g) [`Aliquti NPA`] Hapoalim Bankalim B.M.