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
AI Poisoning: A Self Help Cybersecurity Option Image

A novel legal self-help technique to secure artificial intelligence data and programs is known as Poisoning AI. This technique involves modifying the AI algorithm to intentionally produce specific erroneous results.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit Image

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether purchasing market competitors’ search engine keyword terms, known as “conquesting,” constitutes trademark infringement.

DOJ Issues New Rule Regulating Handling of Bulk Sensitive Personal Data Image

The DOJ has proposed a rule that would regulate certain transactions involving bulk sensitive personal data. The rule would implement a complex regulatory framework, with civil and criminal enforcement, that is similar to sanctions and export licensing regimes. It also implicates federal cybersecurity requirements, government contracting and CFIUS actions.

Adapting for Success: Strategic Insights for Law Firms in 2025 and Beyond Image

The legal industry is at an inflection point, grappling with challenges that range from rising client demands to technological disruption. There are five critical areas where firms can take a proactive, strategic approach, including actionable insights and recommendations for navigating 2025 and beyond.

Second Circuit Clarifies Video Privacy Protection Act Image

The Second Circuit’s decision is notable in that it signals a reversal of the recent trend of dismissals of VPPA claims in courts across the country and could trigger a significant increase in VPPA lawsuits. Although organizations have grappled with VPPA claims for several years, this decision is another red flag to organizations to take immediate steps and ensure compliance with privacy laws to mitigate the risks of VPPA claims.