Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes BulletinKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

<i>Fokker</i> and Its Aftermath: The Irony and the Legacy

By Doreen Klein and Stanley A. Twardy, Jr.
November 30, 2015

While recent years have seen a rash of decisions rejecting civil settlements between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and corporate defendants, United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 79 F. Supp. 3d 160 (D.D.C. 2015), represents the first time that a federal court has rejected an agreement in the criminal context. The defendant in Fokker was an aerospace services provider that the government charged with selling aircraft parts to customers in Iran and other U.S.-sanctioned nations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the defendant entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, and the DOJ moved to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. ' 3161 ' a standard request permitting the DOJ to assess the defendant's adherence to the terms of the agreement. Characterizing Iran as “one of our country's worst enemies” and Fokker as a “rogue” company, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied the application, derailing the agreement. DOJ and Fokker appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which heard argument in September but at press time, had not yet rendered its decision.

There are several ironies. The district court's reading of the Speedy Trial Act ensures that this matter will remain in limbo and without resolution for some time to come. Moreover, the case came before the Court of Appeals two days after the DOJ announced a renewed initiative to hold individuals accountable for corporate misdeeds ' one of the chief failings the district court identified. Finally, Fokker leveraged off the holding in United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 12-CR-763, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92438 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013), where U.S. District Judge John Gleeson relied upon a “plain reading” of the Speedy Trial Act ,but termed his scrutiny of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) “novel.”

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.