Deferred Prosecution Agreement Sample Contracts
Deferred Prosecution AgreementDeferred Prosecution Agreement • January 24th, 2012
Standard Contracts
ATTACHMENT A STATEMENT OF FACTSDeferred Prosecution Agreement • October 16th, 2021
The following Statement of Facts is incorporated by reference as part of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the “Fraud Section”), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (the “Office”) (collectively, the “United States”) and the defendant Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited (“Amec Foster Wheeler” or the “Company”). Certain of the facts herein are based on information obtained from third parties by the United States through its investigation and described to the Company. The Company hereby agrees and stipulates that the following facts and conclusions of law are true and accurate. The Company admits, accepts and acknowledges that it is responsible for the acts of its officers, directors, employees and agents as set forth below. Should the United States pursue the prosecution that is deferred by the Agreement, the Company agrees that it will neither contest
Deferred Prosecution AgreementDeferred Prosecution Agreement • June 20th, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDeferred Prosecution Agreement • January 7th, 2021 • Boeing Co • Aircraft
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIADeferred Prosecution Agreement • March 2nd, 2020
ContractDeferred Prosecution Agreement • May 14th, 2021 • State Street Corp • State commercial banks
AMENDED DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • April 8th, 2019
Defendant Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”), by its undersigned and authorized representatives, hereby enters into this Amended Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (collectively, the “Offices”).
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • January 20th, 2017 • Western Union CO • Services-business services, nec
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • June 25th, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADODeferred Prosecution Agreement • January 14th, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISIONDeferred Prosecution Agreement • January 6th, 2021
CASE NO.Deferred Prosecution Agreement • November 11th, 2020
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • October 23rd, 2024
Defendant Raytheon Company (the “Company”), pursuant to authority granted by the Company’s Board of Directors reflected in Attachment B, and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the “Fraud Section”) and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts (the “Office”), enter into this deferred prosecution agreement (the “Agreement”). RTX Corporation (“RTX”), which is not a defendant in this matter, also agrees, pursuant to the authority granted by RTX’s Board of Directors, to certain terms and obligations of the Agreement as described below. The terms and conditions of this Agreement are as follows:
Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) trackerDeferred Prosecution Agreement • November 1st, 2022
Name Enforcement Jurisdiction Year of offence Country / Countriesinvolved Public / Privatesector Summary of offence DPA approved? Additional facts 2021 [Two companies] *Reporting restrictions currently apply; full documentation will be published when this is lifted. UK (SFO) 2021 United Kingdom [•] ● Charges relating to offences contrary to s.1 and s.7 of the Bribery Acy 2010. Yes● Entered into with two UK-based companies for bribery offences.● Fine of: £2,510,065 (includes disgorgement of profits and financial penalties) to be paid by the two companies.● The DPAs contain an undertaking by a parent company to support a comprehensive compliance programme and reporting obligations (to the SFO) as to compliance over regular intervals during the agreed two-year term.● Both companies have fully co-operated to date and have agreed to continue to co- operate with the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) in related proceedings. ● The two DPAs share a common Statement of Facts.● The conduct saw bribes
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • October 1st, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIADeferred Prosecution Agreement • May 7th, 2020
Re: Industrial Bank of Korea – Deferred Prosecution AgreementDeferred Prosecution Agreement • April 20th, 2020
Pursuant to the understandings specified below, the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (the “Office”) and defendant Industrial Bank of Korea (“IBK”), under authority granted by its Board of Directors in the form of a Board Resolution (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), hereby enter into this Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADeferred Prosecution Agreement • January 28th, 2022
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • December 3rd, 2020
Defendant Vitol Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to authority granted by the Company’s Board of Directors reflected in Attachment B, the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the “Fraud Section”), and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (the “Office”) enter into this Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”). Vitol S.A., which is not a defendant in this matter, also agrees, pursuant to the authority granted by Vitol S.A.’s Board of Directors, to certain terms and obligations of the Agreement as described below. The terms and conditions of this Agreement are as follows:
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • February 21st, 2020
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California (“USAO- CDCA”) and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina (“USAO-WDNC”) (collectively the “USAOs”) hereby enter into the following Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Wells Fargo & Co., a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively “Wells Fargo” or the “Company”), pursuant to authority granted by the Company’s Board of Directors reflected in Exhibit D, to resolve the federal criminal investigation of violations of, among other statutes, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1005 and 1028A, arising out of Wells Fargo’s improper sales practices (as defined below).
Criminal DivisionDeferred Prosecution Agreement • April 18th, 2011
This letter sets out the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”) between Johnson & Johnson, its subsidiaries, and its operating companies (collectively, “J&J”) and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the “Department of Justice” or the “Department”) relating to illegal conduct committed by certain J&J operating companies and subsidiaries.
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • October 21st, 2020
legal, compliance, finance), or positions that otherwise pose a corruption risk to the Company, and, where necessary and appropriate, agents and business partners; and (b) corresponding certifications by all such directors, officers, employees, agents, and business partners, certifying compliance with the training requirements. The Company will conduct training in a manner tailored to the audience’s size, sophistication, or subject matter expertise and, where appropriate, will discuss prior compliance incidents.
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • March 25th, 2021
EX-10.1 2 d315165dex101.htm DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007 March 8, 2012 William J. Schwartz, Esq. Douglas P. Lobel, Esq. Cooley LLP New York, New York 10036-7798 Re:...Deferred Prosecution Agreement • May 5th, 2020
Pursuant to our discussions and written exchanges, the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (the “Office”) and the defendant Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), under authority granted by its Board of Directors in the form of a Board Resolution (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), hereby enter into this Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -against- Cr. No. 12-763 HSBC BANK USA, N.A. and HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, Defendants.Deferred Prosecution Agreement • December 12th, 2012 • HSBC Usa Inc /Md/ • National commercial banks
Defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A., a federally chartered banking institution and subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings, Inc., and defendant HSBC Holdings plc, a financial institution holding company organized under the laws of England and Wales (collectively, “the HSBC Parties”), by their undersigned representatives, pursuant to authority granted by the HSBC Parties’ Boards of Directors, and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of West Virginia (collectively, the “Department”), enter into this deferred prosecution agreement (the “Agreement”). The terms and conditions of this Agreement are as follows:
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENTDeferred Prosecution Agreement • December 18th, 2020
Defendant Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (the “Company”), pursuant to authority granted by the Company’s Management Board reflected in Attachment B, and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the “Fraud Section”) and Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (“MLARS”), and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (collectively, the “Offices”) enter into this Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”).
United States Attorney District of New JerseyDeferred Prosecution Agreement • August 12th, 2020
This letter sets forth the full and complete deferred prosecution agreement between the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey (the “Office”) and CSG Imports LLC (“CSG Imports”).
Criminal DivisionDeferred Prosecution Agreement • April 18th, 2011
This letter sets out the deferred prosecution agreement (the “Agreement”) between Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Tyson”) and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the “Department”) relating to certain illegal conduct committed by Tyson.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEYDeferred Prosecution Agreement • January 15th, 2021
March 26, 2012Deferred Prosecution Agreement • March 28th, 2012 • LVB Acquisition, Inc. • Orthopedic, prosthetic & surgical appliances & supplies
Biomet, Inc. (“Biomet”), by its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to authority granted by Biomet’s Board of Directors, and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (the “Department”) enter into this deferred prosecution agreement (the “Agreement”). The terms and conditions of this Agreement are as follows:
Deferred Prosecution Agreement (Dpa) Concept In The Sys- tem Of Criminal Jurisdiction In IndonesiaDeferred Prosecution Agreement • December 1st, 2021
This study aims to determine the application of the DPA concept in the criminal justice system in Indonesia. This research also analyzes the stages and mechanisms for implementing DPA in the justice system in Indonesia. The research method used is juridical normative or literature research related to normative legal substances, to find the truth based on scientific logic from a normative perspective by examining library materials or secondary data consisting of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The research results show that the concept of DPA in the criminal justice system in Indonesia needs to consider several things: DPA, which will be applied in Indonesia, must consider the Indonesian judicial system in its constitutional structure and legal tradition. The impact of regulatory and compliance burdens on corporations, where cor- porations require additional costs. Crimes that can use the DPA mechanism are serious (but not limited), so a special law is required to
AAS:JN/DKK/SME/MAAF.#2017R00850Deferred Prosecution Agreement • September 24th, 2021
U.S. Department of JusticeDeferred Prosecution Agreement • April 27th, 2020
Re: U.S. Bancorp – Deferred Prosecution AgreementDeferred Prosecution Agreement • May 25th, 2018
Deferred Prosecution AgreementDeferred Prosecution Agreement • June 22nd, 2020
An inquiry has been conducted into this matter. It has been determined that at this time neither the interests of the youth named above nor of the public require filing of a petition for circumstances relating to §§938.12 to 938.14, Wisconsin Statutes. It is this worker’s belief, however, that the facts are sufficient that court action could be sought, and this conclusion is undisputed by the youth and parents, guardian or legal custodian.
