Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DSAs) have become a regular, though rarely used, feature of the UK legal landscape in recent years. This section deals with disclosure requirements for data protection authorities, which are different from those applicable to prosecutions under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 («CPIA»). It also includes statements by the prosecutor and investigators about the investigation and the documents provided. At the time of publication, SFO Director Lisa Osofsky said: «The publication of these guidelines will bring more transparency about what we expect from companies that want to work with us.» Director Osofsky`s full explanations can be found here: www.sfo.gov.uk/2020/10/23/serious-fraud-office-releases-guidance-on-deferred-prosecution-agreements/. Simply put, they allow a sued company to avoid a lawsuit as long as it meets certain conditions. DPAs can be used for certain economic crimes such as fraud and corruption. In October 2020, the FSO published a chapter of its handbook that provides comprehensive guidance on how to approach DPAs and work with companies where ODA is a likely outcome. If the court approves the agreement and the draft indictment, the court offices must provide each hard copy of the draft indictment with an indictment number and a note to identify it as a court-approved indictment and the date of court approval, and treat the case as if it had been stayed by a court order.  In addition, the ODA Code contains other non-exhaustive factors that should be taken into account. Other public interest factors that favour prosecution are the following: No company wishes to be sued, given the associated costs and reputational damage, as well as the risk of being excluded from tendering for public procurement if convicted. However, only companies that offer full cooperation with the authorities will be asked to conclude a data protection agreement. However, such agreements were not a flexible option, and the terms of a ODA offered should be examined very carefully. A DPA usually expires on the date specified in the agreement.
 If the proceedings are closed after the expiry of a DPA, the prosecutor must publish: (i) the fact that the proceedings have been closed; and (ii) details of the Company`s compliance with the DPA, unless there are reasons for a delay in publication.  The concept of Respondeat Superior – that is, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees and agents – makes corporate criminal liability in the United States a realistic prospect when those who work for a company are involved in criminal activity. This makes the possibility of prosecution relatively easy, which can then lead to the resolution of a case by an DPA. In the United Kingdom, however, the absence of this concept means that the so-called principle of identification is used to determine whether the author was a «guiding spirit and will» of the company. This has proven to be an obstacle to establishing corporate responsibility in the UK. The more difficult it is to prove the company`s liability, the lower the likelihood of prosecution, which in turn means a lower probability of a decision on an ODA. If the court finds that the company is in breach of the DPA, it may ask the parties to agree on an appropriate remedy proposal. If an agreement can be reached, the parties must apply to the court for the agreement to be registered as a formal amendment to the DPA. The court will only approve such a change if the Data Protection Authority`s terms (as amended) are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
 If the company played a leading role in the procurement and verification of its own equipment, e.B. if it conducted an internal investigation and/or reported the misconduct that is the subject of the FSO`s investigation, it should have sufficient knowledge of the strength of that evidence. In such cases, the disclosure requirements of the DSA Code would only require the FSO to disclose additional information that could undermine any conclusions that might be drawn from the face of those documents or compromise the admissibility of those pieces of evidence. For greater clarity, prior to the start of negotiations, it is necessary to obtain the Company`s consent for the FSO not to provide it with any company documents for disclosure purposes. All requests for disclosure from the company must be specific and reasoned.  Voluntary disclosure is found in a non-exhaustive list of public interest factors in the DPA Code of Conduct that argue in favour of a data protection authority rather than prosecution. Each of the specified public interest factors, as well as others that may be case-specific, are taken into account by the prosecutor in the exercise of his or her discretion as to whether a case should be closed through a data protection authority.  It has always been true that self-reporting is not absolutely necessary, although it is a factor that will carry considerable weight. This was confirmed in Airbus` January 2020 DPA, in which the court stated: «. There is no clear line needed between self-declaration and cooperation. If it was not clear, the guide now clarifies this in footnote 15, which states: «The failure of a company to declare itself is not an obstacle to ODA negotiations per se, but must be taken into account as a factor in assessing whether an ODA is in the public interest.
 In criminal proceedings, the appropriate amount of a fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence and require the court to take into account the financial situation of the offender.  A similar approach to a data protection agreement is needed. Sections 7.11 to 7.22 of the DSA Code provide specific guidance on how a supervisor should be appointed and on the specific controls, policies and procedures that the supervisor should follow when assessing the company`s compliance program, and encourage the prosecutor to consider «up-to-date external guidelines for compliance programs» when designing a monitoring station, including those provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, oecd and Department of Justice. The prosecutor must not only be convinced of one of the two links of the evidentiary test, but also be satisfied that the public interest would be properly satisfied by entering into a DPA with the company, rather than proceeding to prosecution.  This requires a balance between factors that tend to support law enforcement and those that do not. The factors considered relevant and the weight to be given to each are within the competence of each prosecutor and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.  This section contains templates and guidelines for the drafting of documents necessary for the application of the Court of Justice and which are normally published.
The first is the determination of the facts. It contains a detailed factual explanation of the underlying behavior. The second is the agreement itself, which contains the agreed terms. Arrangements must be made as to what will happen in the event of a sale, merger or any other change in the structure of the business by, from or otherwise related to the Company during the CCA period. In order to make this statement, the prosecutor should require the investigator, usually the lead investigator, to provide a written certificate attesting that any document held by the investigator that may meet the law enforcement disclosure criterion under the DPA Code has been brought to the attention of the prosecutor.  The chapter follows and broadly reaffirms the structure of the current DSA Code of Conduct, which sets out the rules for evidence testing and testing in the public interest. the ODA negotiation process; parallel examinations; invitations to enter into ODA negotiations; trading conditions; DISCLOSURE of ODA; Presentation of the facts and agreement; Terms of ODA; financial penalties; court applications; and the steps after completing a CCA. .