Nonprosecution agreement

Extracted Attributes

• Legal Definition

  A pre-trial diversion contract where no charges are filed if sanctions are met.

• Epstein Agreement Year

  2007 (Controversial agreement resolving federal sex trafficking investigations)

• Growth in Usage (2007)

  70% increase in federal corporate DPAs and NPAs

• Las Vegas Sands Penalty

  $7 million USD criminal penalty for internal control failures

• Primary Enforcing Agency

  U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

• Stryker Orthopedics NPA Duration

  18 months from the effective date

Timeline

• The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey issues a letter related to the Stryker Orthopedics investigation. (Source: undefined)

  2005-10-25

• A controversial nonprosecution agreement is reached involving Jeffrey Epstein, later cited in discussions of elite impunity. (Source: undefined)

  2007-01-01

• Federal corporate nonprosecution and deferred prosecution agreements increase by 70% over the course of the year. (Source: undefined)

  2007-12-31

• Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler issues a memo regarding the use of monitors in corporate NPAs. (Source: undefined)

  2010-05-25

• The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research publishes a report titled "The Shadow Regulatory State" on the rise of DPAs. (Source: undefined)

  2012-05-01

• Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance provides a mid-year update on corporate NPAs and DPAs. (Source: undefined)

  2013-07-24

• Corporate Counsel publishes an analysis of the tradeoffs between nonprosecution agreements and plea agreements. (Source: undefined)

  2015-01-05

List of people named in the Epstein files

The Epstein files comprise over six million pages of documents detailing the activities of American financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. So far c. 3.5 million files have been made public, among them 180,000 images and 2,000 videos. The U.S. Justice Department claimed having redacted all and only the names of victims and of law enforcement officials, yet it released the names of nearly 100 Epstein victims. Many members of the transnational capitalist class appeared in the files, as well as prominent figures in academia, politics, royalty, entertainment, and other areas. The revelation of some of the names has led to public backlash. As of February 2026, the only individual convicted for activities related to Epstein's crimes is Ghislaine Maxwell, the only individuals having been charged for activities related to Epstein's crimes are Jean-Luc Brunel and Thorbjørn Jagland. No wrongdoing is established by merely appearing in the documents and people featured in the files commonly deny any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein's life and crimes.

Web Search Results

• DOJ enters into non-prosecution agreement with Las Vegas Sands ...

  Non-prosecution agreements have become an important tool for U.S. law enforcement in cases involving criminal misconduct by corporations. These agreements allow for criminal settlements that subject the company to sanctions without the need for a formal conviction or guilty plea. In addition to imposing a fine, non-prosecution agreements provide law enforcement with the additional flexibility to impose mandates on companies to reform their behaviour and improve their internal governance systems, and to obtain important cooperation from companies to assist future prosecutions. Generally speaking, these types of compliance-based results are not available in conventional criminal prosecutions. [...] Deferred or non-prosecution agreements are not a feature of the Canadian enforcement landscape, but are used effectively in a number of other jurisdictions including the United States. The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced a non-prosecution agreement with Las Vegas Sands Corporation resolving an investigation into alleged U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) offences in China and Macau. Under the agreement, the casino and resort company agreed to pay a criminal penalty of nearly $7-million penalty, and admitted that certain of its executives “knowingly and willfully failed to implement a system of internal accounting controls to adequately ensure the legitimacy” of significant payments to a business consultant based in China. The non-prosecution agreement between Las [...] based in China. The non-prosecution agreement between Las Vegas Sands and the DOJ reflects a compliance-oriented approach, and demonstrates how the use of such a tool could help Canadian law enforcement in moving from investigations to successful resolution.

• [PDF] Non Prosecution Agreement - Justice.gov

  1 Non Prosecution Agreement 1. Stryker Orthopedics, a division of Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (the “Company”), by its undersigned attorneys, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey (the “Office”), enter into this Non Prosecution Agreement (the “NPA”). Except as specifically provided below, the NPA shall be in effect for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date it is fully executed (the “Effective Date”). 2. The Company agrees to post the NPA prominently on the Company website for the duration of the NPA. General Commitment to Compliance and Remedial Actions 3. [...] a condition precedent to any Payments being issued under a Consulting Agreement. 33. [...] 18 The Full Agreement 53. This NPA constitutes the full and complete agreement between the Company and the Office and supersedes any previous agreement between them, with the exception of the letter from this Office dated October 25, 2005. No additional promises, agreements, or conditions have been entered into other than those set forth in this NPA and the letter from this Office dated October 25, 2005, and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by the Office, Company counsel, and a duly authorized representative of the Company. It is understood that the Office may permit exceptions to or excuse particular requirements set forth in this NPA at the written request of the Company or the Monitor, but any such permission shall be in writing.

• DPAs & NPAs - NACDL

  ## DPAs & NPAs Deferred Prosecution Agreements (“DPAs”) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (“NPAs”) are pre-trial diversion contracts entered into by the government—usually the Department of Justice—and a potential corporate defendant. Under the terms of a DPA, the government files criminal charges against a company, but holds prosecution of the charges in abeyance until the company satisfies the terms of the DPA. Unlike with DPAs, no charges are filed against companies that enter NPAs so long as they comply with specified sanctions. [...] Deferred Prosecution Agreements (“DPAs”) and Non-Prosecution Agreements (“NPAs”) are pre-trial diversion contracts entered into by the government—usually the Department of Justice—and a potential corporate defendant. Under the terms of a DPA, the government files criminal charges against a company, but holds prosecution of the charges in abeyance until the company satisfies the terms of the DPA. Unlike with DPAs, no charges are filed against companies that enter NPAs so long as they comply with specified sanctions. News and resources discussing efforts to change the manner in which DPAs and NPAs operate, along with several actual DPAs and NPAs, are provided below. #### News and Commentary “DPAs and Plea Agreements: The Tradeoffs,” Corporate Counsel, January 5, 2015. [...] Online 1.0 Credits (where applicable) ### 2026 Forensic Science & Technology Seminar Sahara Las Vegas Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, NV 15.0 Credits, including Technology & Ethics Credits 2013 Mid-Year Update on Corporate Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, July 24, 2013 2012 Mid-Year Update on Corporate Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements, Gibson Dunn, July 10, 2012 The Shadow Regulatory State: The Rise of Deferred Prosecution Agreements, James Copland, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, May 2012 Memo from Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler, Additional Guidance on the Use of Monitors in DPAs and NPAs with Corporations (May 25, 2010) (Grindler Memo)

• [PDF] Measuring the Impact of Non-Prosecution and Deferred Prosecution ...

  prosecution agreement with conditions designed, among other things, to promote compliance with applicable law and to prevent recidivism. Such agreements are a third option, besides a criminal indictment, on the one hand, and a declination, on the other. Declining prosecution may allow a corporate criminal to escape without consequences. Obtaining a conviction may produce a result that seriously harms innocent third parties who played no role in the criminal conduct. Under appropriate circumstances, a deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreement can help restore the integrity of a company’s operations and preserve the financial viability of a corporation that has engaged in criminal conduct, while preserving the government’s ability to prosecute a recalcitrant corporation that [...] speech then DOJ Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray stated: [W]e’re encouraging prosecutors to develop flexible and innovative approaches as they work to ensure that companies accept responsibility and cooperate with us. In certain cases, an alternative resolution — like a deferred prosecution or even a nonprosecution agreement — can strike that balance. One option we’ve used increasingly is the deferred prosecution agreement, which some people describe as pretrial diversion. We file charges, but agree to defer prosecution for a year, two years, or even longer. In return, the company agrees to cooperate fully and admits publicly the facts of its misconduct. It also typically makes a payment, which can be structured as a fine, restitution, forfeiture, or some other category. We can [...] DP won’t result in a criminal conviction if the defendant complies with the agreement, but filing charges publicly condemns the company’s conduct. . . . . In other cases, we’ve used nonprosecution agreements with cooperating companies. These don’t involve the filing of charges, but we still typically require the company to admit its conduct publicly. We also retain enormous leverage over the company, because we reserve the right to prosecute if it fails to comply with the agreement — again, armed with the company’s admissions. And we can still include virtually any combination of payments and remedial measures.35 The DOJ’s implicit policy assertion that NPAs and DPAs were needed to avert another “Arthur Andersen effect” was quickly embraced by the legal practitioners — perhaps because

• [PDF] note deferred/non prosecution agreements - Cornell Law

  NOTE DEFERRED/NON PROSECUTION AGREEMENTS: EFFECTIVE TOOLS TO COMBAT CORPORATE CRIME Michael Yangming Xiao As corporations assume a more prominent role in society, govern­ ment authorities face an increasing challenge to combat the concomitant growth of corporate crime. While formal criminal and civil litigation remain important tactics, authorities also rely on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as cooperation agreements, to remedy cor­ porate delinquency. Amongst the different types of cooperation agree­ ments, prosecutors increasingly utilize deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) to bring delinquent cor­ porations to justice. Commentators, however, have alternately criticized DPAs and NPAs as both being too harsh and too lenient on [...] . [W]here the collateral consequence of a corporation con­ viction for innocent third parties would be significant it may be appropriate to consider a non-prosecution or de­ ferred prosecution agreement with conditions designed, among other things, to promote compliance with appli­ cable law and to prevent recidivism.61 Many commentators and members of the public believe that cooper­ ation agreements such as DPAs and NPAs reflect a “soft-on-corporate­ crime” approach which allows corporations to escape “deserved punish­ ment” such as public shaming62 or prison sentences for officers.63 While it is physically impossible place a corporation in prison, corporate executives and business owners—who otherwise could receive prison terms—often do avoid spending time in penitentiaries as a result [...] sentence.5 Prosecutors often use two types of cooperation agreements: deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs).6 Although DPAs and NPAs were initially created as alternative forms of punishment for juvenile and drug offenders, they are being used increasingly in corporate crime proceedings.7 In 2007, the number of federal corporate DPAs and NPAs increased seventy percent from the 1 David O. Friedrichs, Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society 67 (1995). 2 Victor E. Kappeler & Gary W. Potter, Corporate Crime and “Higher Immorality,” in The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice 149 (Victor E. Kappeler and Gary W. Potter eds., 2005). 3 Friedrichs, supra note 1, at 132. 4 See Julie R. O’Sullivan, Federal White Collar Crime: Cases and