However, a major difference between Singapore`s approach and that of the United Kingdom is that, in the context of the United Kingdom, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Office for Serious Fraud must jointly publish a code of data protection authorities to provide guidance on various issues. These guidelines include the general principles to be applied in determining whether a DPA is likely to be appropriate in a given case (including the benefits of self-disclosure and leniency conditions), whereas Singapore`s approach does not impose such a requirement. This divergent approach is likely due to singapore`s view that it was not desirable to issue criminal law guidelines.7 However, it is possible that the factors taken into account by the UK authorities are also relevant factors in Singapore. [231] Press release, UK Serious Fraud Office, SFO, enters into a €991 million deferred prosecution agreement with Airbus as part of a €3.6 billion global resolution (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/. An ODA is an agreement between an organization and the prosecutor. This is a criminal charge against the organization, but this procedure is automatically stayed. In return, the organization agrees to certain requirements being made. This may include fines, payment of compensation, cooperation with law enforcement of individuals, or the implementation of a compliance program. For a prosecutor, the DPA procedure would offer a number of advantages: [240] Press release, UK Serious Fraud Office, Serious Fraud Office publishes guidance on deferred prosecution agreements (23 October 2020), www.sfo.gov.uk/2020/10/23/serious-fraud-office-releases-guidance-on-deferred-prosecution-agreements/. “Monetary recoveries” figures may include amounts that are not strictly limited to an NPA or DPA, such as fines, penalties, forfeiture and refund requirements imposed by other regulators and law enforcement authorities, as well as amounts from related settlement agreements, all of which can be part of a comprehensive MPA or ODA solution. are paid by that legal entity and/or subsidiaries. The term “monitoring and reporting” includes traditional compliance monitors, self-reporting agreements and other monitoring agreements contained in settlement agreements. Together, these seven data protection authorities represent the first examples of the antitrust division`s use of these agreements to resolve purely antitrust charges, as opposed to charges laid jointly with other law enforcement agencies or authorities.
Thus, while the contours of the Antitrust Division`s approach to ODA negotiations are still being worked out, particularly in terms of self-declaration and forbearance, it is clear that DPAs are now on the menu for practitioners leading antitrust investigations. Some argue that ODA legislation does not go far enough and is not convinced of its ability to assure organizations that they can deliver a better outcome than seizing the opportunity for a full investigation and trial. The organizations are also particularly concerned about the documents provided to prosecutors during the ODA negotiations that will be used for subsequent prosecutions if the negotiations fail. On August 28, 2020, Herbalife Nutrition, Ltd. (“Herbalife”), a global nutrition company, agreed to enter into a three-year DPA with the DOJ Fraud Section and the United States. Office of the Attorney for the Southern District of New York (“S.D.N.Y.”) for conspiracy to violate FCPA regulations on books and records. [115] According to the DPA, Yangliang Li, an executive of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Herbalife based in China (Herbalife China), and other employees of Herbalife China participated in a scheme of falsifying books and records and inappropriate payments and benefits to Chinese government officials from 2007 to 2016 in order to obtain Chinese government officials, and the increase in Herbalife`s activities in China. [116] Li and other Herbalife China employees kept false account records that did not accurately reflect transactions and disposals of Herbalife`s assets, for example by incorrectly recording certain payments and benefits as “travel and hospitality expenses,” according to the DPA.
[117] In the United States. . . .