DOJ Revises Position on Employee Carve-outs in Corporate Plea Agreements | Practical Law

DOJ Revises Position on Employee Carve-outs in Corporate Plea Agreements | Practical Law

Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer recently announced changes to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) position on employee carve outs in corporate plea agreements.

DOJ Revises Position on Employee Carve-outs in Corporate Plea Agreements

Practical Law Legal Update 3-525-7395 (Approx. 3 pages)

DOJ Revises Position on Employee Carve-outs in Corporate Plea Agreements

by PLC Antitrust
Published on 12 Apr 2013USA (National/Federal)
Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer recently announced changes to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) position on employee carve outs in corporate plea agreements.
Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer recently announced changes to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) position on employee carve outs in corporate plea agreements. In past corporate plea agreements, the DOJ has afforded non-prosecution protection to employees who cooperated with the DOJ's investigation and whose conduct did not justify prosecution. However, the exception excluded or carved-out those employees who:
  • Were believed culpable.
  • Refused to cooperate in the investigation.
  • Were the subject of a DOJ investigation.
  • Had potentially relevant information, but could not be located.
The names of those excluded employees were listed in the corporate plea agreements, which were publicly filed in district court.
The DOJ's new and current position is:
  • Only employees who are believed culpable will be subject to the carve out.
  • Names of carved-out employees will only be listed in an appendix to the plea agreement, which the DOJ will request to be placed under seal.
Baer also clarified that the DOJ will still:
  • Insist on total cooperation from anyone seeking non-prosecution protection.
  • Revoke protection from those who do not fully and truthfully comply with DOJ investigations.
Baer explained that the DOJ changed its position because it is typically inappropriate to publicly identify uncharged third-party offenders without compelling justification.