Search results

The purpose of this study is to use crime mapping techniques to examine geographic patterns of signed deferred and non-prosecution agreements across federal districts. The purpose is also to examine the variation in the number of agreements by the district since 1992.

This study uses data from the Corporate Prosecution Registry to examine geographic patterns in federal corporate agreements since 1992 (n = 534). Choropleth mapping techniques were used to create national crime maps displaying the geographic locations of signed corporate agreements.

The results showed that, overall, prosecutors in the District of Columbia have signed the most federal corporate agreements although there is some variation over time.

This study is unable to determine the causes of changes in the geographic placement or number of agreements signed. It is also unable to determine the precise geographic locations of crimes, but only the location of the District Court that elected to pursue a federal agreement with the organization.

The wide discretion prosecutors have in the agreement process has led to an overall lack of transparency concerning prosecutors’ decision-making when signing agreements with organizations. This study helps to make the number and geographic location of agreements more transparent.

This study uses crime mapping techniques to visually depict the locations of signed agreements allowing for visual comparisons and analyzes for an extended period of time.

This study aims to analyze corporate mail and wire fraud penalties, using bounded rationality in decision-making and assessing internal and external influences on prosecutorial choices.

The study analyzed 467 cases from 1992 to 2019, using data from the Corporate Prosecution Registry of the University of Virginia School of Law and Duke University School of Law. It examined corporations facing mail and wire fraud charges and other fraud crimes. Multiple regression linked predictor variables to the dependent variable, total payment.

The study found that corporate penalties tend to be lower for financial institutions or corporations in countries with US free trade agreements. Conversely, penalties are higher when the company is a U.S. public company or filed in districts with more pending criminal cases.

This study’s originality lies in applying the bounded rationality model to assess corporate prosecutorial decisions, unveiling external factors’ influence on corporate penalties.

This paper, presented at the 2012 International Symposium on Economic Crime, Jesus College, Cambridge, identifies four serious problems that affect enforcement of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) the awkwardness of using the prosecutorial system as a de facto regulatory agency; the uncertainties imposed on corporate capital budgeting systems in determining how much to spend on compliance; the paucity of judicial interpretation of the law, and thus the interpretations of prosecutors as de facto law that may not be law; and the ambiguous benefits of compliance with the law that leads to inadequate compliance. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper employs traditional legal research methodology, analysing case law, statutory interpretation, legal literature, and textual analysis of aggregated deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements between the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and national and multinational corporations between 2000 and 2011.

Several boundaries require clearer definition in US enforcement of the FCPA.

The paper defines areas for fruitful comparative legal analysis between enforcement of the US FCPA and enforcement of the UK Bribery Act of 2010.

The paper has practical implications for UK policy makers addressing issues of the Bribery Act of 2010.

The paper provides cautionary notes to public policy makers in the UK as the Serious Fraud Office designs alternative prosecution approaches to enforce the Bribery Act of 2010.

Other various signatory nations of anti-corruption treaties, and in particular the UK, can benefit by observing the experience of the US DOJ's enforcement regime and building more clarity into implementing anti-corruption legislation.

Perceptions about the frequency of misconduct – among the public, academics and even regulators – have largely been formed by examining enforcement statistics, which rely on the detection and sanctioning of the misconduct. This study aims to illuminate the real occurrence of corporate misconduct, much of which escapes public detection.

By examining confidential firm records describing misconduct within organizations, the author shows that public enforcement statistics significantly underestimate the amount of serious malfeasance that arises within firms.

Through analyzing records for several large multinational firms, the author finds that there are, on average, more than two instances of internally substantiated misconduct per week per firm.

Ultimately, this analysis illustrates the challenge of addressing corporate malfeasance within large organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an updated review of Canadian foreign official anti-bribery policy.

To achieve this objective, seven factors were examined. Several factors have been emphasized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and others are original.

The results indicate that while Canada is making progress towards strengthening its foreign official anti-bribery policy, significant weaknesses still remain.

This study adds to the literature in this area by utilizing several new factors which attempt to gauge the effectiveness of foreign official anti-bribery policy.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the basis of the complaints against banks which sold private label securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the financial crisis. The examination shows that all but one of the cases was settled out of court. Nomura and RBS went to court, but the case against them was based on dubious evidence and on strict liability which only enabled the judge to set aside relevant evidence. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s evidence against senior executives of Fannie and Freddie shows that they deliberately purchased PLSs based on subprime loans to meet the government’s housing targets.

The research was based on publicly available documents, including details of the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) complaints against the banks in question, the settlement agreements published by the DoJ, FHFA and SEC. Furthermore, it includes documentary evidence from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee and Senate Committees, the full transcript of the trial, opinions of the judge for the trial and the judgement.

The findings are that many have concluded that settlements out of court fail to satisfy the demand for justice. They have been criticised as a trade-off between the prosecutor and the bank, with a view that the imposition of large fines is to pay back taxpayers’ money spent on rescuing the banks, rather than punishing those responsible. Such fines do little, if anything, to change the behaviour of banks. As a result, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum on 9 September to focus on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing. It remains to be seen how many cases against senior executives will result from the change in direction.

The implications of the research are that it is important even in the aftermath of such a serious if not devastating financial crisis to ensure that the laws are properly applied and can stand up to any challenge that it has been stretched to obtain the results the administration of the day wants to see. In addition, care must be taken over both the imposition of large fines and the use to which the monies should be put. All the parties involved in bringing about the crisis should be held to account. The major cases against the banks have almost all been “resolved”. A change in direction has now taken place.

The practical implications of holding individuals to account should now be tackled. It requires a careful examination of the laws and regulations already in place to ensure that it is clear within a bank as to who is responsible for what. It will only be possible to hold senior individuals to account if the laws are clear and if all the evidence is not hidden. It may also require a review of the contracts under which senior executives are employed, because to remove a person from his post and then find that he still has a large pension pot and bonuses due may not result in justice either. A delicate balancing act is required because banks require highly competent and motivated individuals to run them.

If a very large fine is imposed on a bank, the shareholders and customers pay. The shareholders will mostly own the shares through their pensions and their savings in mutual funds.

There have been few studies of all the cases against the banks brought by the DoJ and FHFA and still fewer have recognized the fact that government housing policy was the source of the extent of the subprime mortgages.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether foreign firms pay disproportionately higher monetary penalties after controlling for factors that affect the sanctioning of the firm.

In this paper, a cross-sectional data analysis has been used to examine the enforcement actions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) against all private and public companies from 1978 to 2019.

The findings indicate that that foreign firms pay disproportionately higher monetary penalties than domestic firms after controlling for factors that affect the sanctioning of firms. On average, foreign firms pay $43.3m more to the US government than US firms pay. This is a considerable difference in monetary penalties and equal to 68.95% of the average monetary penalty.

This paper shows that the US government treats US firms more favorably than foreign firms in monetary sanctions. Because the FCPA is not applied equally, this is contrary to US government guidelines and to the rule of law. The government needs to reconsider the consequences of imposing disproportionately higher penalties on foreign firms. Given the lack of judicial scrutiny of the FCPA settlement amounts against foreign firms, prosecutorial harshness against them can be remedied by amending the FCPA to eliminate the unequal treatment of foreign entities.

This paper aims to debate moral and legal dilemma embedded with plea bargaining (PB) and raises a question whether the approach of “PB” is a viable tool to tackle financial crimes and to what extent it contributes in recovery of stolen money. This paper critically examines the concept with reference to relevant laws of the USA, the UK, Pakistan and Nigeria.

This study used legal scholarship, jurisprudence and other open source data to analyze issues in the application of PB as a viable tool in asset recovery and financial crimes.

This paper provides that PB has certain moral and legal dilemma in terms of legality and punishment; the concept offers a sense of escape from criminal punishment by simply return of partial stolen money or “settlement” in exchange of discounted punishment even without imprisonment, thus incentivizing an offender. Further, the concept is unregulated, misapplied especially in developing world like Pakistan and Nigeria, where plea bargain laws are mostly manipulated by white-collar individuals. Therefore, this study recommends the amendment of relevant laws pertaining to PB; construction of “plea bargain handbook” to prevent arbitrariness and misapplication and to ensure transparency in its application; legislations like Speedy Trail Act; creation of “Fast Track-Model Courts” and a balancing system between “settlement” and “deterrence.”

Perspectives on PB are brought to bear from financial crime and malpractice and recovery of stolen money.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the international standards for establishing national jurisdiction over the transnational crimes of money laundering and bribery and identify challenges to the adoption of those standards by different states in practice.

This paper, first, defines transnational money laundering and transnational bribery; then, it examines the legal bases and principles on which a state can claim criminal jurisdiction over these offences. This paper also discusses the application of jurisdictional conditions in a transnational context and how to deal with the problems arising from national claim of jurisdiction over these offences, for example, jurisdictional concurrence.

This paper argues that when the jurisdictional concurrence occurs, the involved states should consult one another by taking into account a number of relevant factors and take the “centre of gravity” approach to deciding which state or forum should prosecute eventually. States less able to establish jurisdiction over the offences are often those which have a weak legal basis and/or insufficient resources.

To the authors’ knowledge, this article would be the good guidance on how a state could claim jurisdiction over the offences of transnational money laundering and transnational bribery.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the scope of the legal responses to bribery and particularly foreign bribery in the global context. It identifies the corrosive effect of bribery and its negative effect on the economy, before turning to Australia’s mixed response to foreign bribery.

The paper is theoretical in nature as a review of policy, and the literature has been the main method used for analysis. Given the increasingly transnational and organised nature of foreign bribery, this paper adopts a comparative approach using Australia as the home base with some comparisons with the UK and the USA.

This paper finds that Australia’s response to foreign bribery is improving from a low base, and that this is recognised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Further improvement could be expected if there were strong government leadership and coordination of law enforcement authorities, including the police, corporate regulators and corruption authorities at the Commonwealth, state and territory levels. This paper acknowledges the work of Australia’s unfinished Senate Foreign Bribery Inquiry, which is due to report by 30 June 2017.

This paper revisits the debate on bribery and the response of law enforcement, highlighting the importance of effective and coordinated law enforcement. The paper will provide background for those analysing the issues with foreign bribery and the solutions for law enforcement.

The paper enables the reader to gain insights into the problems and causes and effects of foreign bribery. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to, and facilitate, further analysis of the most effective way to deal with bribery and the legal response.