DOCSLIB.ORG

Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deferred Prosecution Agreement F. #2020R00927 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFERRED PROSECUTION - against - AGREEMENT THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., Cr. No. 20-437 (MKB) Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT The defendant The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to authority granted by the Company’s Board of Directors, reflected in Attachment B, and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (collectively the “Offices”), enter into this deferred prosecution agreement (the “Agreement”). Criminal Information and Acceptance of Responsibility 1. The Company acknowledges and agrees that the Offices will file the attached one- count criminal information (the “Information”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York charging the Company with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, that is, to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (“FCPA”), as amended, see Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78dd-1, 78dd-2 and 78dd-3. In so doing, the Company: (a) knowingly waives its right to indictment on these charges, as well as all rights to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b); and (b) knowingly waives any objection with respect to venue to any charges by the United States arising out of the conduct described in the Statement of Facts attached hereto as Attachment A (the “Statement of Facts”) and consents to the filing of the Information, as provided under the terms of this Agreement, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Offices agree to defer prosecution of the Company pursuant to the terms and conditions described below. 2. The Company admits, accepts, and acknowledges that it is responsible under United States law for the acts of its officers, directors, employees, and agents as charged in the Information, and as set forth in the Statement of Facts, and that the allegations described in the Information and the facts described in the Statement of Facts are true and accurate. Should the Offices pursue the prosecution that is deferred by this Agreement, the Company stipulates to the admissibility of the Statement of Facts in any proceeding by the Offices, including any trial, guilty plea, or sentencing proceeding, and will not contradict anything in the Statement of Facts at any such proceeding. The Company agrees that, effective as of the date the Company signs this Agreement, in any prosecution that is deferred by this Agreement, it will not dispute the Statement of Facts set forth in this Agreement, and, in any such prosecution, the Statement of Facts shall be admissible as: (a) substantive evidence offered by the government in its case-in-chief and rebuttal case; (b) impeachment evidence offered by the government on cross-examination; and (c) evidence at any sentencing hearing or other hearing. In addition, in connection therewith, the Company agrees not to assert any claim under the United States Constitution, Rule 410 of the Federal Rules 2 of Evidence, Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section 1B1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG” or “Sentencing Guidelines”), or any other federal rule that the Statement of Facts should be suppressed or is otherwise inadmissible as evidence in any form. Term of the Agreement 3. This Agreement is effective for a period beginning on the date on which the Information is filed and ending three (3) years from that date (the “Term”). The Company agrees, however, that, in the event the Offices determine, in their sole discretion, that the Company has knowingly violated any provision of this Agreement or has failed to completely perform or fulfill each of the Company’s obligations under this Agreement, an extension or extensions of the Term may be imposed by the Offices, in their sole discretion, for up to a total additional time period of one year, without prejudice to the Offices’ right to proceed as provided in Paragraphs 17-20 below. Any extension of the Agreement extends all terms of this Agreement, including the terms of the reporting requirement in Attachment D (Corporate Compliance Reporting), for an equivalent period. Conversely, in the event the Offices find, in their sole discretion, that there exists a change in circumstances sufficient to eliminate the need for the reporting requirement in Attachment D, and that the other provisions of this Agreement have been satisfied, the Agreement may be terminated early. If the Court refuses to grant exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2), the Term shall be deemed to have not begun and all the provisions of the Agreement shall be deemed null and void, except that the statute of limitations for any prosecution relating to the conduct described in the Statement of Facts shall be tolled from the date on which this Agreement was signed until the date the Court refuses to grant the exclusion of time plus six months. In addition, if Goldman Sachs (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (“Goldman Malaysia”) later is 3 permitted to withdraw its plea of guilty, this Agreement shall be deemed null and void, except that the statute of limitations for any prosecution relating to the conduct described in the Statement of Facts shall be tolled from the date on which this Agreement is signed until six months following the date on which the plea of guilty is subsequently withdrawn. Relevant Considerations 4. The Offices enter into this Agreement based on the individual facts and circumstances presented by this case and the Company, including: a. the Company did not receive voluntary disclosure credit pursuant to the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy in the Department of Justice Manual (“JM”) 9-47.120, or pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines, because it did not voluntarily and timely self-disclose to the Offices the conduct described in the Statement of Facts; b. the Company received partial credit for its cooperation with the Offices’ investigation of the underlying conduct, including: collecting and producing voluminous evidence located in other countries; making regular factual presentations and investigative updates to the Offices; and voluntarily making foreign-based employees available for interviews in the United States; c. the Company did not receive full credit for its cooperation because the Company was significantly delayed in producing relevant evidence, including recorded phone calls in which the Company’s bankers, executives, and control functions personnel discussed allegations of bribery and misconduct relating to the conduct set forth in the Statement of Facts; d. the Company ultimately provided to the Offices all relevant facts known to it, including information about the individuals involved in the misconduct; 4 e. the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Goldman Malaysia, is pleading guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, that is, to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, as amended, Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78dd-1 and 78dd-3; f. the Company ultimately engaged in remedial measures, including (i) implementing heightened controls and additional procedures and policies relating to electronic surveillance and investigation, due diligence on proposed transactions or clients and the use of third-party intermediaries across business units; and (ii) enhancing anti-corruption training for all management and relevant employees; g. the Company has committed to continuing to enhance its compliance program and internal controls, including ensuring that its compliance program satisfies the minimum elements set forth in Attachment C to this Agreement (Corporate Compliance Program); h. based on the Company’s remediation and the state of its compliance program, and the Company’s agreement to report to the Offices as set forth in Attachment D, the Offices determined that an independent compliance monitor is unnecessary; i. the nature and seriousness of the offense conduct, including, among other things: the amount of bribes; the level and number of the foreign officials bribed; the duration of the scheme; the resulting illicit gains to and increased stature in the region for the Company from the deals, which were significant to the Company and key to the divisions of the Company in which the deals occurred; 5 j. the pervasiveness of the misconduct within the Company, including that high-level employees within the Company’s investment bank were involved in the misconduct described in the Statement of Facts and others ignored significant red flags; k. the Company has agreed, concurrent with this resolution, to resolve additional investigations relating to the conduct described in the Statement of Facts, including by entering into a Consent Order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “the Fed”) pursuant to which it will pay a civil money penalty of $154 million; by settling
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sweetheart Deals, Deferred Prosecution, and Making a Mockery of the Criminal Justice System: U.S. Corporate Dpas Rejected on Many Fronts
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 12-2018 Sweetheart Deals, Deferred Prosecution, and Making a Mockery of the Criminal Justice System: U.S. Corporate DPAs Rejected on Many Fronts Peter Reilly Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Peter Reilly, Sweetheart Deals, Deferred Prosecution, and Making a Mockery of the Criminal Justice System: U.S. Corporate DPAs Rejected on Many Fronts, 50 Ariz. St. L.J. 1113 (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1298 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SWEETHEART DEALS, DEFERRED PROSECUTION, AND MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: U.S. Corporate DPAs Rejected on Many Fronts Peter R. Reilly* Corporate Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) are contracts negotiated between the federal government and defendants to address allegations of corporate misconduct without going to trial. The agreements are hailed as a model of speedy and efficient law enforcement, but also derided as making a “mockery” of America’s criminal justice system stemming from lenient deals being offered to some defendants. This Article questions why corporate DPAs are not given meaningful judicial review when such protection is required for other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tools, including plea bargains, settlement agreements, and consent decrees.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 7 CRIMINAL CASE DISPOSITIONS I. Dispositions and Domestic Violence
    CHAPTER 7 CRIMINAL CASE DISPOSITIONS In Washington, the law governing sentencing and other dispositional matters is generally the same in domestic violence cases as it is in other criminal prosecutions. Washington’s general provisions are covered in other publications, and the discussion need not be repeated here. In superior court, see Washington State Judges Benchbook, Criminal Procedure, Superior Court and the Adult Sentencing Manual, which is issued annually by the Sentencing Guidelines Commission. In courts of limited jurisdiction, see Washington State Judges Benchbook, Criminal Procedure, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. These books cover in detail matters such as: Constitutional provisions, statutes, and court rules Respective rights of defendant and State Pre-sentence investigation and report Forms of sentences, imprisonment, community service, treatment, etc. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances Exceptional sentences outside standard range Credit for time served Consecutive and concurrent sentences Restitution and costs Assessments in addition to fines, restitution, and costs Other assessments Procedure at sentencing hearing Probation, suspended sentences, and deferred sentences Scripts for judges In this domestic violence manual, the discussion focuses on the special considerations that should be taken into account in domestic violence cases. I. Dispositions and Domestic Violence Stopping domestic violence requires changing both behaviors and belief systems. Perpetrators are more likely to change when they have several experiences of being held accountable. Domestic violence is learned through a variety of experiences and stopping it requires a variety of experiences. It is not arrest alone, or prosecution alone, or conviction alone, or perpetrator treatment alone that brings about change, but rather, a combination of these experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Investigations Guide: Eurasia with Contributions From
    Global Investigations Guide: Eurasia With contributions from BGI Legal Centil Law Firm Concern Dialog Law Firm GRATA International Kalikova & Associates Kosta Legal MGB Law Offices Popa & Associates Sayenko Kharenko Sorainen Unicase Law Contents Introduction 5 Editors 10 Guide questions 12 Armenia 15 Azerbaijan 25 Belarus 37 Georgia 51 Kazakhstan 63 Kyrgyz Republic 72 Moldova 83 Russia 93 Tajikistan 105 Turkmenistan 112 Ukraine 119 Uzbekistan 131 12 Hogan Lovells Guide questions 1. What are the laws relating to anti-corruption, bribery, and money laundering in your country? 2. Do the following persons or bodies have the right to be informed, or is the company obliged to inform the following persons/bodies, about an internal investigation before it is commenced? Do they have the right to participate in the investigation (e.g., in interviews)? a. Employee representative bodies, such as a works council or union. b. Data protection officer or data privacy authority. c. Other local authorities. What are the consequences of non-compliance? 3. Do employees have a duty to support the investigation, for instance by participating in interviews? Is there anything a company can do to require employees to support an investigation (e.g., advance consents)? Can companies impose disciplinary measures if an employee refuses to cooperate? 4. Can any labor law deadlines or statute of limitations be triggered, or any rights to sanction employees be waived, by investigative actions? How can this be avoided? 5. Are there relevant data privacy laws, state secret laws, or blocking statutes in your country that have to be taken into account before: a.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study on the Workload of Public Prosecutors in Selected Council of Europe Member States
    COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE WORKLOAD OF PUBLIC PROSECUTORS IN SELECTED COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES prepared on the basis of expertise by Lorena Bachmaier, Grażyna Stanek, James Hamilton, Gaja Štovičej and Catherine Carrie This study is implemented in the framework of the Council of Europe Project "Human Rights Compliant Criminal Justice System in Ukraine" which is part of the Council of Europe Action Plan for Ukraine 2018-2021 1 Table of contents: Abbreviations.................................................................................... 3 Executive summary............................................................................ 3 Introduction ...................................................................................... 6 Background information of Ukraine ..................................................... 9 Aim of the study .............................................................................. 12 Methodological principles and tools ................................................... 13 Topics and common structure of the country reports............................. 16 Table of contents and questionnaire for country reports ........................ 17 Country reports ............................................................................... 19 Germany ........................................................................................ 19 Ireland ........................................................................................... 32 Poland...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Director-Of-The-Serious-Fraud-Office-V
    Case No: U20200108 IN THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHWARK IN THE MATTER OF s.45 OF THE CRIME AND COURTS ACT 2013 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 31 January 2020 Before : THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (THE RT. HON. DAME VICTORIA SHARP) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : Director of the Serious Fraud Office Applicant - and - Airbus SE Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - James Lewis QC, Allison Clare, Katherine Buckle and Mohsin Zaidi (instructed by the Serious Fraud Office) for the Applicant Hugo Keith QC and Ben FitzGerald (instructed by Dechert LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 31st of January 2020 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Approved Judgment SFO v Airbus SE Dame Victoria Sharp P.: Introduction 1. On 28 January 2020 I heard an application in private in which I was asked to make a declaration in preliminary approval of a deferred prosecution agreement (a DPA) reached between the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Airbus SE (Airbus). At that hearing, I made a declaration that it was likely to be in the interests of justice for such agreement to be made and that its proposed terms were fair, reasonable and proportionate. Today, the 31 January 2020, I made a final declaration and Order to that effect at a hearing held in public. One of the consequences of this Order is that Airbus must pay a total financial sanction of approaching one billion euros (€990,963,712 including costs) to the Consolidated Fund via the SFO within 30 days of today’s date, made up of the disgorgement of profit of €585,939,740 and a penalty of €398,034,571.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 971 Criminal Procedure — Proceedings Before and at Trial
    Updated 2019−20 Wis. Stats. Published and certified under s. 35.18. October 1, 2021. 1 Updated 19−20 Wis. Stats. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AND AT TRIAL 971.025 CHAPTER 971 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AND AT TRIAL 971.01 Filing of the information. 971.19 Place of trial. 971.02 Preliminary examination; when prerequisite to an information or indict- 971.20 Substitution of judge. ment. 971.22 Change of place of trial. 971.025 Forms. 971.223 Change of place of trial for certain violations. 971.027 Protected information. 971.225 Jury from another county. 971.03 Form of information. 971.23 Discovery and inspection. 971.04 Defendant to be present. 971.26 Formal defects. 971.05 Arraignment. 971.27 Lost information, complaint or indictment. 971.06 Pleas. 971.28 Pleading judgment. 971.07 Multiple defendants. 971.29 Amending the charge. 971.08 Pleas of guilty and no contest; withdrawal thereof. 971.30 Motion defined. 971.09 Plea of guilty to offenses committed in several counties. 971.31 Motions before trial. 971.095 Consultation with and notices to victim. 971.315 Inquiry upon dismissal. 971.10 Speedy trial. 971.32 Ownership, how alleged. 971.105 Child victims and witnesses; duty to expedite proceedings. 971.109 Freezing assets of a person charged with financial exploitation of an elder 971.33 Possession of property, what sufficient. person. 971.34 Intent to defraud. 971.11 Prompt disposition of intrastate detainers. 971.36 Theft; pleading and evidence; subsequent prosecutions. 971.12 Joinder of crimes and of defendants. 971.365 Crimes involving certain controlled substances.
    [Show full text]
  • Checkpoint: an Innovative Programme to Navigate People Away from the Cycle of Reoffending – a Randomised Control Trial Evaluat
    Article The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles 1–28 Checkpoint: An innovative ª The Author(s) 2021 Article reuse guidelines: Programme to navigate sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0032258X211018774 people away from the cycle journals.sagepub.com/home/pjx of reoffending – A randomised control trial evaluation Kevin Weir, Stephanie Kilili , John Cooper, Andrew Crowe and Gillian Routledge Durham Constabulary, Aykley Heads Durham, Durham, UK Abstract This study contributes to the evidence base of police deferred prosecution schemes aimed at reducing reoffending. Durham Constabulary, UK, introduced Checkpoint, an adult deferred prosecution scheme which targets offenders entering the Criminal Justice System by providing an alternative to a criminal prosecution. Applying theories of deterrence and desistance, this paper describes the randomised control trial findings of 521 offenders randomised between 1 August 2016 and 31 March 2018. The results indicate that the Checkpoint treatment cohort achieved a lower reoffending rate in comparison to the control cohort, on the basis of prevalence (10.3% reduction) and risk of reoffending (30% reduction). Keywords Reoffending, out of court disposals, evidence-based policing, offender desistance Introduction Out-of-Court Disposals (OOCD) have become a key policy and political area in the UK, with the removal in April 2013 of the previous requirement on the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on the suitability of cases for conditional cautions, devolving the decision to the custody officer in the police station (Neyroud and Slothower, 2013). Corresponding author: Stephanie Kilili, Durham Constabulary, Durham Police HQ, Aykley Heads, Durham DH1 5TT, UK. Email: [email protected] 2 The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles XX(X) This created not only an increase in time spent on a disposal decision by the police but also a requirement on the police to set and manage conditions for offenders.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Diversion and Deferred Prosecution Schemes?
    Cordis Bright evidence reviews What works in delivering court diversion and deferred prosecution schemes? Published in July 2019 Court diversion and deferred prosecution schemes can be a valuable tool for achieving a range of outcomes: reducing reoffending rates, reducing costs to the criminal justice system, and improving wider outcomes for offenders. We reviewed1 the evaluations of 20 different diversion and deferred prosecution schemes. Below we profile the different schemes and assess their effectiveness in relation to achieving these three overarching outcomes. We also outline the policy context surrounding deferred prosecution and identify consistent themes regarding successful implementation. Please get in touch with our Head of Research, Dr Stephen Boxford, for more detail or to continue the conversation. 1 Context 1.1 Key definitions Diversion This can refer to any type of programme whose aim is to avoid formal processing of an offender by the criminal justice system, offering an alternative to prosecution and imprisonment. Diversion can be both informal, for example police diverting a suspect when the offence is minor, or formal, typically involving a programme that must be completed as a condition of diversion (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). Deferred prosecution Deferred prosecution involves criminal charges not being brought against defendants provided they fulfil certain conditions. These conditions typically involve the offender not committing other offences within a certain time period, and may also include financial penalties, compensation or reparation to victims and attending some form of therapeutic or educational programme. If the defendant successfully complies with the conditions then the charges are dropped. Deferred prosecution can be thought of as a form of formal diversion.
    [Show full text]
  • Dpa Doa: How and Why Congress Should Bar the Use of Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreements in Corporate Criminal Prosecutions
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLL\52-2\HLL201.txt unknown Seq: 1 9-SEP-15 14:00 NOTE DPA DOA: HOW AND WHY CONGRESS SHOULD BAR THE USE OF DEFERRED AND NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENTS IN CORPORATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS GORDON BOURJAILY* I. INTRODUCTION The default mode of American federal corporate criminal law enforce- ment today is the deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”).1 These guilty- plea-esque settlements allow organizations to settle criminal charges with the federal government without trial, conviction, or (sometimes) even indict- ment. In theory, the situation benefits the government, the defendants, and the public at large: prosecutors can secure criminal penalties and sweeping internal reforms from corporate wrongdoers with less time and expense, cor- porations can avoid the potentially disastrous collateral consequences of go- ing through the criminal justice system, and the public interest in preventing corporate crime is vindicated without unnecessary harm to the innocent shareholders, employees, customers, and creditors of the firms in question. However, creating a secondary criminal justice system has its costs: DPAs allow prosecutors to circumvent the safeguards of the criminal pro- cess, and they undermine public faith in the rule of law. Because DPAs re- solve corporate criminal matters before the indictment stage, they take place outside of all but the most minimal judicial and public oversight. As a result, there is little recourse for corporate defendants when prosecutors exploit their leverage to exact concessions—even unconstitutional ones. *Gordon Bourjaily, B.A., Amherst College, 2011; J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, Class of 2015. 1 This paper will address not only DPAs but non-prosecution agreements, or NPAs.
    [Show full text]
  • Deferred Prosecutions in the Corporate Sector: Lessons from LIBOR
    Deferred Prosecutions in the Corporate Sector: Lessons from LIBOR Justin O’Brien* & Olivia Dixon** I. INTRODUCTION Since 2008, the global economic downturn has significantly in- creased operating pressures on major corporations. Profit margins have been squeezed. Increased competition, decreased demand, and the peren- nial pressure to meet or exceed earnings forecasts add to the bottom line pressures on corporate boards. The 2012 Ernst & Young Annual Global Fraud Survey (Ernst & Young Survey) paints an exceptionally bleak pic- ture.1 It details a debilitating nexus between a challenging economic out- look and “institutional fatigue,” which inhibits capacity to deal with a pervasive and growing problem.2 Hard times, it concludes, strain ethical standards.3 Significantly, this increased corporate tolerance for corrup- tion coincides with a marked preference by regulators in settling, rather than litigating, enforcement actions. This trend is most notable in the United States, where fines linked to deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) have been running at record levels.4 Most recently, focus has shifted to corruption in the setting of benchmark interest rates, where at least sixteen banks and three broker- age houses are currently under investigation by regulatory authorities over the suspected manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate * Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Professor of Law and Director, Centre for Law, Mar- kets and Regulation, UNSW Law, University of New South Wales. **Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney. 1. ERNST & YOUNG, GROWING BEYOND: A PLACE FOR INTEGRITY: 12TH GLOBAL FRAUD SURVEY 28 (2012) (U.K.), available at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Global-Fraud- Survey-a-place-for-integrity-12th-Global-Fraud-Survey/$FILE/EY-12th-GLOBAL-FRAUD-SURV EY.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • King County District Court, State of Washington
    KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY NO. OF KING/CITY OF , Plaintiff, FINDINGS OF FACT, vs. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER GRANTING DEFERRED , PROSECUTION Defendant, Count 1 Count 2 VIOLATION DATE: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Defendant stipulates to the admissibility and sufficiency of the police reports filed in this case and that those documents are sufficient to support a conviction on the offense(s) charged under the above-referenced cause number if the Deferred Prosecution is revoked. 2. The Defendant acknowledges the admissibility of the stipulated facts in any criminal hearing on the underlying offense(s) held subsequently to the revocation of the Order granting Deferred Prosecution 3. The Defendant has examined the Petition and treatment report and recommendations and has indicated his/her agreement to undertake and pay the costs of the prescribed treatment if financially able to do so, and such other conditions as set forth in this Order. 4. The Defendant has waived the right to (a) a speedy trial; (b) a trial by jury; (c) testify; d) question witnesses; (e) call witnesses and (f) present evidence or a defense. 5. Defendant acknowledges that his/her statements in the Petition are admissible and will be entered and used to support a finding of guilty if the Deferred Prosecution is revoked 6. The Defendant has not been previously granted a Deferred Prosecution for a Title 46 violation. 7. The Defendant’s stipulations, admissions, and statements are knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Page 1 of 5 Order Granting Deferred Prosecution KCDC October 2018 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Court Diversion for Adults: an Evidence Briefing
    Briefing Pre-court diversion for adults: an evidence briefing Summary Pre-court diversion seeks to offer a swift and meaningful response to low-level offending. The approach has been long recognised as a significant part of the youth justice system. Recently, interest in pre-court diversion for arrested adults has been re-awakened, with the Lammy Review recommending trials of new forms of ‘deferred prosecution’ and recent high-profile projects such as Operation Turning Point in the West Midlands and Checkpoint in Durham. A 2018 survey by the National Police Chiefs’ Council revealed that a majority of police forces across England and Wales are engaged in using or developing pre-court diversion for adults as well as finding both a wide variety in practice and in the terms used to describe pre-court diversion. Pre-court diversion, as we define it, operates in two ways: first, individuals who are arrested and likely to receive a formal out of court disposal are ‘diverted’ into either a less serious out of court disposal or an informal disposal; second, individuals who are arrested and likely to be prosecuted in court are ‘diverted’ into either a formal out of court disposal or an informal disposal (this diversion from court is sometimes called ‘deferred prosecution’). What is common to both of these diversion routes is that an individual who complies with the conditions of a pre-court diversion should receive a lesser criminal justice disposal than they would have otherwise received, reducing the negative consequences of formal criminal justice sanctions (a process we call de-escalation) and allowing practitioners to focus resources on addressing the root causes of offending.
    [Show full text]