Sigue Deferred Prosecution Agreement

In 2008, 40% of data protection authorities were involved in FCPA violations, in line with the DOJ`s growing interest in investigating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). DpAs, which relate to immigration fraud – the hiring of illegal aliens – have also increased, leading to three data protection agencies. The DOJ has registered two data protection authorities for money laundering and two data protection authorities for securities irregularities and infringements. Finally, there was a DPA for internet gambling; postal fraud for illegal inducements to purchase a customer; and False Claims Act offences. In 2007, many data protection authorities were tasked with taking action in the area of public health and the fight against food and drug fraud. In 2008, there were no data protection authorities in these areas. Overall, the combination of allegations made by data protection authorities in 2008 is consistent with the DOJ`s persecution tendencies and shows no tendency for DOJA to engage in specific crimes. In the post-Enron and WorldCom era, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) often uses deferred enforcement agreements (“DPAs”) to resolve federal criminal investigations. [1] Although corporate data protection authorities play an important role in limiting the collateral consequences of the corporate charge, their significantly increased engagement has led to considerable debate. The debate on DPA culminated in 2008, when several data protection authorities attracted the media and the legislature and led to new doJ directions. The 17 data protection authorities closed in 2008 are half as numerous as in 2007. This slowdown can be explained by the normal slowdown in business investigations and prosecutions.

It could also reflect the debate on the use of data protection authorities and the DOJ`s cautious approach to the introduction of data protection authorities, pending further legislative and internal guidelines. For example, the use of data protection authorities by individual U.S. law firms decreased in 2008, accounting for only about half of data protection authorities in 2008, compared to two-thirds of data protection authorities in 2007. In 2008, the DOJ Fraud Section remained the leader in welcoming data protection authorities and processed 6 of the 17 – about 35 percent of the total. On November 21, 2008, the DOJ announced that, although Aibel had provided “considerable time, staff and resources to meet the obligations of the data protection authority,” this is not in line with the data protection authority.