Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Business Crimes Hotline

By Colleen Snow
December 01, 2018

New Department of Justice Guidance for Compliance Monitorships

On Oct. 11, 2018, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Brian Benczkowski, issued the “Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Cases” memorandum to “establish standards, policy, and procedures, for the selection of monitors” in U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division cases involving a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), non-prosecution agreement (NPA), or plea bargain between the DOJ and business organizations.

Building on the 2008 memorandum issued by then Acting Deputy Attorney General, Craig Morford (“Selection and Use of monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements with Corporations”), Benczkowski opens with a discussion of applicable DOJ considerations regarding appointment of a compliance monitor. Specifically, the factors considered by Criminal Division attorneys are as follows:

  • Whether the underlying misconduct involved the manipulation of corporate books and records or the exploitation of an inadequate compliance program or internal controls systems;
  • Whether the misconduct at issue was pervasive across the business organization or approved or facilitated by senior management;
  • Whether the corporation has made significant investments in, and improvements to, its corporate compliance program and internal controls systems; and
  • Whether remedial improvements to the corporate compliance program and internal controls have been tested to demonstrate that they would prevent or detect similar misconduct in the future.

The memorandum further notes that the DOJ should take monetary costs to the business into account — particularly compared to any potential benefits gained by the monitorship — in addition to “the unique risks and compliance challenges the company faces” in light of its industry and operating jurisdictions.

In the event a corporate compliance monitor is imposed, the memorandum goes onto discuss in detail the compliance monitor selection process, which is broken into six primary components:

  • Nomination of monitor candidates;
  • Initial review of monitor candidates;
  • Preparation of a monitor recommendation memorandum;
  • Standing Committee review of a monitor candidate;
  • Review by the Assistant Attorney General; and
  • Approval by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.

Further, the memorandum also briefly touches on internal DOJ approval and consultation requirements; terms required in DPAs, NPAs, and plea agreements related to compliance monitors; and the Standing Committing protocol for DOJ's monitor selection.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance 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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.