Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing's Non-prosecution Agreement  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

What exactly is a "non-prosecution agreement"? I'm not a lawyer, but I got the impression from school that people or companies don't get any kind of immunity from punishment if they commit crimes.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0710-31.htm

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2242 times:

Very interesting. I'd certainly like to see the full text of the agreement. Do you know if it's available anywhere?


New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2231 times:

Quoting Joni (Thread starter):
What exactly is a "non-prosecution agreement"? I'm not a lawyer, but I got the impression from school that people or companies don't get any kind of immunity from punishment if they commit crimes.

Boeing is only criminally liable if they cover up any illegal activity. The individual committing the crime is not immune.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quote:
In the agreement, which covers a two-year period, Boeing agrees not to commit any criminal offenses related to stealing of other companies' sensitive procurement information or the laws governing federal bribery, graft and conflict of interest.

 rotfl  Unbelievable - so they're agreeing to abide by the laws of the United States of America... well... at least for two years?? Great!

And better yet...

Quote:
If a non-executive level Boeing employee violates the agreement, that's not a violation by Boeing.

I'd say that this pretty much sums it up:

Quote:
"Drawing the line between executives and other employees is a little crude," said Columbia University Law Professor John Coffee. "I don't think you want to tell non-executive employees they are legally immune and can't get the company in trouble. You want the company monitoring all employees."

Then again...

Quote:
"Under this agreement, Boeing gets a pass," said University of Connecticut Law Professor Leonard Orland. "It's pretty good negotiating. That's amazing. Nobody else has it."

On a somewhat bizarre level, it's nice to see that, when companies are big enough, they're just as exempt from large parts of legislation (and, obviously, common sense on the legislation-side) on both sides of the Atlantic...  Yeah sure

What a nice summation:

Quote:
It means that over the past couple of years, we have gone from convicting corporate criminals for corporate crimes, to allowing them to get off with deferred and non-prosecution agreements, to the low point of the Boeing non-prosecution agreement, which says that even if Boeing violates the agreement, it's not a violation.

Unbelievable... simply unbelievable...



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 3):
Unbelievable - so they're agreeing to abide by the laws of the United States of America... well... at least for two years?? Great!

And better yet...

Boeing is being put on "probation", and the terms of the probation are being laid out. New violations will lead to action on those violations as well as the original violations. However, only violations where the company's management engages in wrongdoing will be a violation of the probation for the company. For other violations, the company could still be liable, but it won't lead to violation of the probation.

Quoting Leskova (Reply 3):
On a somewhat bizarre level, it's nice to see that, when companies are big enough, they're just as exempt from large parts of legislation (and, obviously, common sense on the legislation-side) on both sides of the Atlantic...

Not really. Entities like companies can't actually do anything. It's employees, executive and non-executive, that engage in activity, including criminal activity. Employees of companies may do illegal or unethical things to benefit themselves, not necessarily their company. The agreement is defining when those actions of employees will be attributed to the company as a violation of the settlement.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 4):

 checkmark 

Very nice summation "counselor." It's not difficult to dig-up some "lefty" law professors to express "amazement" about such a routine settlement structure.

One wonders what CommonDreams, a publication closely associated with Howard Zinn (whose philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy), would opine about Mr. Forgeard's stock sales in March.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

What do they mean by "Executives".

User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

Atmx2000,

You appear to have the full text of the agreement - could you post a link to it?

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 5):
It's not difficult to dig-up some "lefty" law professors to express "amazement" about such a routine settlement structure.

But he specifically said that wasn't "routine" at all.


User currently offlineGte439u From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

A careful reading of the CommonDreams text shows that there is bias against Boeing by the authors. The authors made little effort to provide objective reporting as indicated by the informal, adversarial reporting style. For example, the authos pose questions in the article that are designed to upset a reading who agrees with this position.

"Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., Alexandria, and Los Angeles did not return calls seeking answers to some questions, like:

Why wasn't the Boeing non-prosecution agreement promptly released along with the civil agreement?

Did Boeing lawyers request that the non-prosecution agreement not be released?

Why did federal prosecutors agree to the loophole-ridden non-prosecution agreement?

Awaiting your call. "

At least the authors provided a quote from the corporate law firm Baker Botts, ""It's an odd and unusual provision," said Ryan McConnell of Baker Botts in Houston who has closely followed the rise of corporate deferred and non-prosecution agreements. "I've never seen it before." "

Finally, whatever law professors say should generally be taken with a grain of salt. They spend their days trapped cushy offices writing about legal esoterica even though they have practiced for only a few years if at all.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

Quoting Gte439u (Reply 8):
At least the authors provided a quote from the corporate law firm Baker Botts, ""It's an odd and unusual provision," said Ryan McConnell of Baker Botts in Houston who has closely followed the rise of corporate deferred and non-prosecution agreements. "I've never seen it before."

Mr. McConnell may well be an expert on such agreements, particularly if he's a former Assistant U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice lawyer. What troubles me about his commentary in this article, is that it seems to be based on being "told" what the settlement agreement stipulates by the reporters, rather than having reviewed the agreement in its entirety himself and then making an assessment.


User currently offlineGte439u From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1938 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 9):
Mr. McConnell may well be an expert on such agreements, particularly if he's a former Assistant U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice lawyer

Mr. McConnell is a third-year associate at Baker, but he did work as a part time enforcement officer with the SEC in STL before he graduated from WashU.

Even if McConnell is just saying what he heard, I am thrilled to see that an associate gets quoted in an article. And I thought that I had nothing but anonymous drudgery awaiting me as an associate if I choose to practice law!

But back on topic...

"I don't think you want to tell non-executive employees they are legally immune and can't get the company in trouble. You want the company monitoring all employees."

I was under the impression that this arrangement was common in settlements, no?


User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

Quoting Gte439u (Reply 10):
"I don't think you want to tell non-executive employees they are legally immune and can't get the company in trouble. You want the company monitoring all employees."

The non-executives aren't legally immune, their actions just aren't considered actions by the company. However, I'd venture that should the company (i.e. the executive level) actually take advantage of the illegal activities of a non-executive employee or knowingly condone such illegal activities the executives would lose any protection.


User currently offlineElvis777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

Leelaw,

Lefty or righty has nothing to do with it. It is possible that this is a very nice deal for someone and perhaps should be scrutinized. Also, commondreams may or may not be a front for a marxist or socialist ideals. I don’t know. However, we should not be so quick to dismiss things from them, unless they have a track record of this I just don’t know I mean if delay and his cronies say that the us universities are full of leftist professor who corrupt our ingenue youth then should we believe them or automatically dismiss them because of the source?

Also, if they have something to say about this and it turns out to be true what does it matter what they say about foregeard alleged violations (Hi Leskova!). I can probably guess that they would say bad bad foregeard. See how the few elite stick it to the little man even though they drove their company into a bad situation- which is more or less the truth (Hi Leskova!). Should we dismiss this b/c it came from them aleft leaning Group (That is what they are is'nt it)?


Peace

Elvis777



Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 11):
The non-executives aren't legally immune, their actions just aren't considered actions by the company. However, I'd venture that should the company (i.e. the executive level) actually take advantage of the illegal activities of a non-executive employee or knowingly condone such illegal activities the executives would lose any protection.

I think it is more like those actions might be considered actions by the company, but not for the purpose of violation of the settlement regarding past charges. Only new violations by the executives that are discovered through means other than being reported by the company to the government will apparently be a violation of the settlement.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing - Machinists Reach Agreement posted Mon Sep 26 2005 01:30:20 by RedFlyer
HA & Boeing Reach Lease Agreement...finally posted Fri Sep 17 2004 00:18:55 by HA_DC9
Delta: Non Boeing Pre Northeast Merger posted Mon May 15 2006 05:29:37 by Zippyjet
Boeing And Union Reach Tentative Agreement posted Wed Nov 16 2005 01:58:19 by Lumberton
CO "near" Agreement With Boeing On 757-300s posted Thu Oct 16 2003 22:53:59 by STT757
Non Airbus/Non-Boeing Planes That You've Been On? posted Thu Oct 4 2001 04:49:20 by Vctony
Vietnam Airlines Signs Agreement For Boeing 777 Je posted Fri Nov 17 2000 10:13:32 by KROC
Boeing And Mitsubishi Heavy Agreement posted Sat Apr 8 2000 19:55:23 by Wingman
Non-Boeing Trivial Answer posted Wed Feb 24 1999 16:22:00 by JZ
Non-Boeing Trivial Question posted Tue Feb 23 1999 17:01:30 by JZ