CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER: Shell, Hilfiger Non-Prosecution Agreements Under Wraps: “When a corporation enters into a non-prosecution agreement with the federal government, the non-prosecution agreement is made public. Until now.”: “In June 2005, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Shell Oil. The U.S. Attorney said at the time that he decided not to criminally prosecute Shell for reporting inflated oil reserves to the Securities and Exchange Commission.”: Posted Thursday 10 November 2005
19 Corporate Crime Reporter 44(1), November 9, 2005
When a corporation pleads guilty to a federal crime, the plea agreement is made public.
When a corporation enters into a deferred prosecution agreement with the federal government, the deferred prosecution agreement is made public.
When a corporation enters into a non-prosecution agreement with the federal government, the non-prosecution agreement is made public. Until now.
Now, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan has decided that not all such agreements are public.
The U.S. Attorney is refusing to make public the non-prosecution agreements with Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Shell Oil) and with Tommy Hilfiger USA.
And he’s not saying why.
“We can’t talk about the reason these agreements are not public,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office told Corporate Crime Reporter.
In June 2005, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Shell Oil.
The U.S. Attorney said at the time that he decided not to criminally prosecute Shell for reporting inflated oil reserves to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In August 2005, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Tommy Hilfiger USA.
The U.S. Attorney said at the time that he decided not to criminally prosecute Hilfiger for tax law violations.
Corporate Crime Reporter is compiling a report on the top 30 corporate non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements.
The report will link to all of the agreements. Except for the Shell and Hilfiger agreements, which the U.S. Attorney is refusing to release.
“This may show the need for greater accountability and transparency,” said Columbia Law School Professor John Coffee.
“Plea bargains are disclosed in open court and subject to judicial approval,” Coffee said. “Perhaps, (in these cases) the prosecution is trying to hide the defendant's agreement to cooperate in other specific cases – which is at least an understandable motive for secrecy – but not an adequate one. More likely, it is the defendant trying to hide the depth of its involvement in something. Either way, it is important that (these kind of agreements) be subject to greater sunlight and disclosure.”
NYU School of Law Professor Harry First agreed.
“It would seem to me to be the obligation of a prosecutor to make any agreement ending a prosecution public, unless there is some compelling reason for secrecy which cannot be solved by redacting the confidential information,” First said. “The case for disclosure here – increased deterrence and increased transparency in law enforcement – would seem to be pretty compelling.”
Corporate Crime Reporter
1209 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045
202.737.1680
Click here to return to ShellNews.net HOME PAGE