Peaks and Troughs of the U.K. Deferred Prosecution Agreement: The Lesson Learned from the First-Ever DPA between the SFO and ICBC SB PLC

Costantino Grasso
{"title":"Peaks and Troughs of the U.K. Deferred Prosecution Agreement: The Lesson Learned from the First-Ever DPA between the SFO and ICBC SB PLC","authors":"Costantino Grasso","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2748688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 introduced Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) into the English legal system. On the 30th of November 2015 the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited entered into the first-ever deferred prosecution agreement in the U.K. with the Serious Fraud Office. It represents a historic turning point for the English legal system as well as an innovation that has the potential to revolutionise the approach to corporate criminal liability traditionally adopted in the United Kingdom. This paper analyses the legislative provisions under Schedule 17 of the 2013 Act dealing with its most problematic aspects and drawing comparisons with the corresponding legal instruments developed in the U.S. It also investigates the reasons behind the DPA implementation in England and Wales focusing on the growing pressure that was exerted on the authorities to carry out successful investigations against corporations involved in criminal activities. Finally, the paper offers an analysis of the first-ever DPA concluded in the U.K. highlighting the most controversial legal issues arising from such an agreement. This can be considered a landmark decision not only because the SFO's first application for a DPA was approved by the judiciary, but also because it was the first time in which a legal entity was charged in England and Wales with the offence of \"failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery\" as provided by section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010.","PeriodicalId":375048,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Business Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Business Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2748688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 introduced Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) into the English legal system. On the 30th of November 2015 the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited entered into the first-ever deferred prosecution agreement in the U.K. with the Serious Fraud Office. It represents a historic turning point for the English legal system as well as an innovation that has the potential to revolutionise the approach to corporate criminal liability traditionally adopted in the United Kingdom. This paper analyses the legislative provisions under Schedule 17 of the 2013 Act dealing with its most problematic aspects and drawing comparisons with the corresponding legal instruments developed in the U.S. It also investigates the reasons behind the DPA implementation in England and Wales focusing on the growing pressure that was exerted on the authorities to carry out successful investigations against corporations involved in criminal activities. Finally, the paper offers an analysis of the first-ever DPA concluded in the U.K. highlighting the most controversial legal issues arising from such an agreement. This can be considered a landmark decision not only because the SFO's first application for a DPA was approved by the judiciary, but also because it was the first time in which a legal entity was charged in England and Wales with the offence of "failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery" as provided by section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010.
英国暂缓起诉协议的波澜起伏:从SFO与ICBC SB PLC之间的首次暂缓起诉协议中吸取的教训
2013年《犯罪和法院法案》附表17将延期起诉协议(dpa)引入了英国法律体系。2015年11月30日,中国工商银行有限公司与英国严重欺诈办公室签订了有史以来第一个延期起诉协议。它代表了英国法律体系的一个历史性转折点,也是一项创新,有可能彻底改变英国传统上采用的公司刑事责任方法。本文分析了2013年法案附表17下的立法规定,处理其最具问题的方面,并与美国制定的相应法律文书进行比较。本文还调查了英格兰和威尔士实施DPA背后的原因,重点是当局对参与犯罪活动的公司进行成功调查的压力越来越大。最后,本文对英国达成的首个DPA进行了分析,强调了此类协议引发的最具争议的法律问题。这可以被认为是一个具有里程碑意义的决定,不仅因为SFO的首次DPA申请获得了司法部门的批准,还因为这是英格兰和威尔士的法律实体首次被指控犯有《2010年反贿赂法》第7条规定的“商业组织未能防止贿赂”罪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信