Peaks and Troughs of the English Deferred Prosecution Agreement: The Lesson Learned from the DPA between the SFO and ICBC SB Plc

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 introduced Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) into the English legal system. It represents a historic turning point as well as an innovation that has the potential to revolutionise the approach to corporate criminal liability traditionally adopted in England and Wales. On 30 November 2015 the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd, which has been the first corporation charged with the offence of “failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery” provided for by s.7 of the Bribery Act 2010, entered into the first ever deferred prosecution agreement in England with the Serious Fraud Office. This article analyses the legislative provisions on DPAs, dealing with their most problematic aspects and drawing comparisons with corresponding legal instruments developed in the US. It also offers an analysis of the above-mentioned DPA, highlighting the most controversial legal issues arising from it.
Original languageEnglish
Article number223/2016
Pages (from-to)388-408
Number of pages20
JournalThe Journal of Business Law
Volume2016
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Mar 2016

Fingerprint

prosecution
corruption
act
offense
fraud
legal system
liability
corporation
bank
innovation
China

Keywords

  • Corporate Crime
  • Deferred Prosecution Agreement
  • financial crime
  • Corruption
  • Bribery
  • Settlement agreements

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

@article{1406aee7060740148430e3bd0e55ebac,
title = "Peaks and Troughs of the English Deferred Prosecution Agreement: The Lesson Learned from the DPA between the SFO and ICBC SB Plc",
abstract = "Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 introduced Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) into the English legal system. It represents a historic turning point as well as an innovation that has the potential to revolutionise the approach to corporate criminal liability traditionally adopted in England and Wales. On 30 November 2015 the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd, which has been the first corporation charged with the offence of “failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery” provided for by s.7 of the Bribery Act 2010, entered into the first ever deferred prosecution agreement in England with the Serious Fraud Office. This article analyses the legislative provisions on DPAs, dealing with their most problematic aspects and drawing comparisons with corresponding legal instruments developed in the US. It also offers an analysis of the above-mentioned DPA, highlighting the most controversial legal issues arising from it.",
keywords = "Corporate Crime, Deferred Prosecution Agreement, financial crime, Corruption, Bribery, Settlement agreements",
author = "Costantino Grasso",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "17",
doi = "10.2139/ssrn.2748688",
language = "English",
volume = "2016",
pages = "388--408",
journal = "The Journal of Business Law",
issn = "0021-9460",
publisher = "Sweet and Maxwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peaks and Troughs of the English Deferred Prosecution Agreement

T2 - The Lesson Learned from the DPA between the SFO and ICBC SB Plc

AU - Grasso, Costantino

PY - 2016/3/17

Y1 - 2016/3/17

N2 - Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 introduced Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) into the English legal system. It represents a historic turning point as well as an innovation that has the potential to revolutionise the approach to corporate criminal liability traditionally adopted in England and Wales. On 30 November 2015 the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd, which has been the first corporation charged with the offence of “failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery” provided for by s.7 of the Bribery Act 2010, entered into the first ever deferred prosecution agreement in England with the Serious Fraud Office. This article analyses the legislative provisions on DPAs, dealing with their most problematic aspects and drawing comparisons with corresponding legal instruments developed in the US. It also offers an analysis of the above-mentioned DPA, highlighting the most controversial legal issues arising from it.

AB - Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 introduced Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) into the English legal system. It represents a historic turning point as well as an innovation that has the potential to revolutionise the approach to corporate criminal liability traditionally adopted in England and Wales. On 30 November 2015 the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd, which has been the first corporation charged with the offence of “failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery” provided for by s.7 of the Bribery Act 2010, entered into the first ever deferred prosecution agreement in England with the Serious Fraud Office. This article analyses the legislative provisions on DPAs, dealing with their most problematic aspects and drawing comparisons with corresponding legal instruments developed in the US. It also offers an analysis of the above-mentioned DPA, highlighting the most controversial legal issues arising from it.

KW - Corporate Crime

KW - Deferred Prosecution Agreement

KW - financial crime

KW - Corruption

KW - Bribery

KW - Settlement agreements

UR - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305918400_Peaks_and_Troughs_of_the_English_Deferred_Prosecution_Agreement_The_Lesson_Learned_from_the_DPA_between_the_SFO_and_ICBC_SB_Plc

U2 - 10.2139/ssrn.2748688

DO - 10.2139/ssrn.2748688

M3 - Article

VL - 2016

SP - 388

EP - 408

JO - The Journal of Business Law

JF - The Journal of Business Law

SN - 0021-9460

IS - 5

M1 - 223/2016

ER -