Department of Justice goes softer on white-collar crime

The beginning of the last decade and the end of the last decade are marked with different bookends in terms of legal strategy for the Department of Justice. The beginning of the 2000’s was marked with aggressive white-collar criminal cases against firms like Arthur Anderson, Enron and Tyco. By 2008, the Department of Justice had officially taken a much softer approach in policing financial fraud cases.

Federal prosecutors today use a soft approach to federal white collar crimes. One technique used in the soft strategy is deferred prosecutions. Deferred prosecutions allow for solutions other than guilty or not guilty verdicts. Deferred prosecution agreements allow companies to investigate and report their own legal missteps, and the agreements allow the government to delay or discontinue prosecution if companies promise to mend their ways.

The step away from aggressive prosecutorial strategy occurred during 2005 when the Supreme Court overturned a white-collar crime conviction in a case dealing with former accounting giant Arthur Andersen. The Department of Justice officially offered deferred prosecution for such cases in 2008.

Under the reformed legal approach the Department of Justice works with companies earlier in the investigation process and usually ask companies to conduct investigations themselves. The companies under investigation then hire outside law firms to conduct the review and report to the government.

Critics of the change say government and business have gotten too close, and the change allows companies to be let off easily. Others say the change in tactics makes the most out of limited resources available to the government.

Source: The New York Times, “As Wall St. polices itself, prosecutors use softer approach,” Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story, 7/7/11

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.