Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

The Binding Effect of Plea Agreements In White Collar Crimes

By Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan Sack
November 01, 2024

White-collar defense attorneys often represent targets of investigation who, by the nature of their conduct, are subject to federal prosecution throughout the country. As a practical matter, though, federal investigations are usually conducted by a single U.S. attorney's office. If a defendant enters into a plea agreement with that office, what is the binding effect on other districts? Does the defendant get complete closure, or is the defendant exposed to possible prosecution by another office?

Federal plea agreements sometimes state explicitly that they are limited to that one office and do not bind other U.S. attorney's offices. That is true in the eastern and southern districts of New York, and such agreements have been construed to bind only the one office. But many districts do not use that specific language. Plea agreements often refer to promises made on behalf of "the United States" or "the government," and such phrasing has created ambiguity in subsequent prosecutions of a defendant who has a plea agreement with another district. In such cases, the circuits are split on how to interpret the scope of "the government."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that ambiguous plea agreements should be presumed to bind U.S. attorney's offices in other districts, and the Fourth and Eighth Circuits have gone further, holding that terms such as "the United States" and "the government" bind every governmental agency under the supervision of the attorney general. The Second and Seventh Circuits have rejected that approach, holding that general references to the government should be construed to bind only the office of the attorney for the district entering into the agreement.

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
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.

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.

Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders Image

Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.

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?