United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law, Committee on
the Judiciary, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 11:00 a.m. EDT
Thursday, June 25, 2009

CORPORATE CRIME
Preliminary Observations
on DOJ’s Use and Oversight
of Deferred Prosecution and
Non-Prosecution
Agreements
Statement of Eileen R. Larence, Director
Homeland Security and Justice

GAO-09-636T

June 25, 2009

CORPORATE CRIME
Accountability Integrity Reliability

Highlights
Highlights of GAO-09-636T, a testimony to
the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives

Preliminary Observations on DOJ’s Use and
Oversight of Deferred Prosecution and NonProsecution Agreements

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

Recent cases of corporate fraud
and mismanagement heighten the
Department of Justice’s (DOJ) need
to appropriately punish and deter
corporate crime. Recently, DOJ has
made more use of deferred
prosecution and non-prosecution
agreements (DPAs and NPAs), in
which prosecutors may require
company reform, among other
things, in exchange for deferring
prosecution, and may also require
companies to hire an independent
monitor to oversee compliance.
This testimony provides
preliminary observations on
(1) factors DOJ considers when
deciding whether to enter into a
DPA or NPA and setting the terms
of the agreements, (2) methods
DOJ uses to oversee companies’
compliance, (3) processes by
which monitors are selected, and
(4) companies’ perspectives
regarding the costs and role of the
monitor. It also includes the results
of GAO’s recently completed work
on DOJ’s efforts to document the
monitor selection process
(discussed in objective 3). GAO
reviewed DOJ guidance and 57 of
the 140 agreements negotiated
from 1993 (when the first 2 were
signed) through May 2009; and
interviewed DOJ officials, officials
from 17 companies, and 6
monitors. While not generalizable,
these results provide insight into
decisions about DPAs and NPAs.

Prosecutors in all 13 DOJ offices with whom GAO spoke said that they based
their decision on whether to enter into a DPA or NPA on DOJ’s principles for
prosecuting business organizations, particularly those related to the
company’s willingness to cooperate, collateral consequences to innocent
parties, and remedial measures taken by the company. However, prosecutors
differed in their willingness to use DPAs or NPAs. In addition, prosecutors’
varying perceptions of what constitutes a DPA or NPA has led to
inconsistencies in how the agreements are labeled. In March 2008, DOJ issued
guidance defining DPAs and NPAs, but this guidance is not consistently
followed, in part because not all DOJ offices view it as mandatory. DOJ plans
to determine the need to take additional steps to require consistency in the
use of the labels DPA and NPA. While DOJ and companies generally
negotiated the terms of DPAs and NPAs—such as monetary payments and
compliance requirements—DOJ also considered other factors in its decisions,
such as monetary gains to the company as a result of the criminal misconduct.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that the Deputy
Attorney General adopt internal
procedures to document both the
process used and reasons for
monitor selection decisions. DOJ
agreed with our recommendation.

To ensure that companies were complying with the terms of the DPAs and
NPAs, DOJ employed several oversight mechanisms, including the use of
independent monitors, coordination with regulatory agencies, and other
means. Of the 57 agreements GAO reviewed, 26 required the company to hire,
at its own expense, an independent monitor. In the remaining agreements,
DOJ relied, among other things, on reports from regulatory agencies or from
monitors hired by companies under separate agreements with these agencies,
and company certifications of compliance.
For the DPAs and NPAs GAO reviewed, even though DOJ was not a party to
the contracts between companies and monitors, DOJ typically selected the
monitor, and its decisions were generally made collaboratively among DOJ
and company officials. Monitor candidates were typically identified through
DOJ or company officials’ personal knowledge or recommendations from
colleagues and associates. In March 2008, DOJ issued guidance stating that for
monitor selection to be collaborative and merit-based, committees should
consider the candidates and the selection must be approved by the Deputy
Attorney General. However, because DOJ does not require documentation of
the process used or the reasons for particular monitor selection decisions, it
will be difficult for DOJ to validate whether its monitor selection guidancewhich, in part, is intended to instill public confidence-is adhered to.
Some company officials GAO spoke with reported that they had little leverage
to address concerns about the amount and scope of the monitors’ work and,
therefore, would like DOJ to assist them. GAO in its ongoing work will assess
this and other issues about the use and oversight of DPAs and NPAs.

View GAO-09-636T or key components.
For more information, contact Eileen Larence
at (202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov.

United States Government Accountability Office

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to discuss the
Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use and oversight of deferred prosecution
and non-prosecution agreements. According to DOJ, one of its chief
missions is to ensure the integrity of the nation’s business organizations
and protect the public from corporate corruption. Recent high-profile
cases of fraud and mismanagement in the financial services sector have
heightened the need for the government to determine the most
appropriate tools it can use to punish and deter corporate crime. Federal
prosecutors continue to prosecute company executives and employees, as
well as companies themselves, for crimes such as tax evasion, securities
fraud, health care fraud, and bribery of foreign officials, among others.
However, over the past decade, DOJ has recognized the potential harmful
effects that criminally prosecuting a company can have on investors,
employees, pensioners, and customers who were uninvolved in the
company’s criminal behavior. The failure of the accounting firm Arthur
Andersen, and the associated loss of thousands of jobs following its
indictment and conviction for obstruction of justice for destroying Enronrelated records, 1 has been offered as a prime example of the potentially
harmful effects of criminally prosecuting a company. To avoid serious
harm to innocent third parties, DOJ guidance allows prosecutors to
negotiate agreements that may require companies to institute or reform
corporate ethics and compliance programs, 2 pay restitution to victims, and
cooperate with ongoing investigations of individuals in exchange for
prosecutors deferring the decision to prosecute. These types of
agreements have been referred to as deferred prosecution (DPA) and nonprosecution (NPA) agreements. As part of these agreements, prosecutors
may also require a company to hire, at its own expense, an independent
monitor to oversee the company’s compliance with the agreement. Based
on our analysis of DOJ data, DOJ has made more frequent use of DPAs and
NPAs in recent years, entering into 3 agreements in 2002 compared to 41
agreements in 2007 and 22 agreements in 2008.

1

The conviction was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court. Arthur Andersen LLP v.
United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005). In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the jury
instructions used to convict Arthur Andersen were impermissibly flawed. Id. at 705-07.

2
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines define a compliance and ethics program as “a program
designed to prevent and detect criminal conduct.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
8B2.1 cmt. n.1.

Page 1

GAO-09-636T

DOJ views DPAs and NPAs as appropriate tools to use in cases where the
goals of punishing and deterring criminal behavior, providing restitution to
victims, and reforming otherwise law-abiding companies can be achieved
without criminal prosecution. The use of these tools, however, is not
without controversy. Some commentators view the use of DPAs and NPAs
as encouraging disrespect for the law and failing to deter corporate crime.
Others have suggested that the threat of an indictment gives prosecutors
excessive power by which they can force companies to agree to highly
unfavorable terms to avoid criminal prosecution.
Considering the balance that DOJ must achieve when determining the
most appropriate way in which to address corporate misconduct, my
testimony today includes preliminary observations on (1) the factors DOJ
considers when deciding whether to enter into a DPA or NPA and setting
the terms of the agreements, (2) the methods DOJ uses to oversee
companies’ compliance with DPAs and NPAs, (3) the process by which
independent monitors are selected, and (4) companies’ perspectives
regarding the costs and responsibilities of the monitors. My comments are
based on our ongoing review of DPAs and NPAs requested by you as well
as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy; the
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers; Congressman
Frank Pallone, Jr.; Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.; and Congresswoman
Linda T. Sanchez. The final results of this review will be issued later this
year. My comments also include the results of our recently completed
work related to DOJ’s efforts in documenting the monitor selection
process (which is discussed as part of objective three above).
To address our objectives, we reviewed DOJ guidance regarding the
prosecution of business entities and the selection and use of independent
monitors. To date, we also reviewed the terms of 57 of the 140 agreements
we have identified that were negotiated from 1993 (when the first 2 were
signed) through May 2009. 3 The specific terms we reviewed include the
monetary penalty imposed, the duration of the agreement, the compliance
program required, and the reporting requirements for the company, and, if
applicable, the independent monitor. We discussed these 57 agreements
with DOJ, and compared the processes that DOJ used when entering into
and overseeing these agreements with criteria in standards for internal

3

For the purposes of this testimony, we decided to review the terms of the 57 agreements
we discussed with officials at the 13 DOJ offices we selected for our site visits and
interviews. The criteria we used to select these offices, and thus the 57 agreements, are
described later in the statement.

Page 2

GAO-09-636T

control in the federal government relating to appropriate documentation
of transactions 4 and prior GAO work that suggests documenting the
reasons for selecting monitors avoids the appearance of favoritism. 5 We
interviewed officials from 13 DOJ offices that are responsible for
prosecuting criminal cases, including DOJ’s Criminal Division and 12 U.S.
Attorneys Offices. We selected the Criminal Division because it had
negotiated the vast majority of agreements entered into by prosecutors at
DOJ headquarters, and we selected 12 specific U.S. Attorneys Offices
because they were the only ones that had negotiated at least 2 agreements,
of which at least 1 had been completed. To date, we have also interviewed
representatives of 17 of the 25 companies that signed DPAs or NPAs that
met the following criteria: the agreement required the company to improve
or institute an ethics or compliance program; the agreement had been
completed; and we had discussed the agreement with DOJ. 6 Fifteen of
these 25 companies were also required to hire an independent monitor,
and, to date, we have interviewed 6 of these monitors. Since we
determined which DOJ officials, company representatives, and monitors to
interview based on a nonprobability sample, the information we obtained
from these interviews is not generalizable to all DOJ litigating units and all
companies and monitors involved in DPAs and NPAs. However, the
interviews provided insights into the negotiation and implementation of
DPAs and NPAs.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to June 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our objectives.

4

GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
5

GAO, Structured Settlements: The Department of Justice’s Selection and Use of Annuity
Brokers, GAO/GGD-00-45 (Washington D.C.: Feb. 16, 2000).
6

DOJ required 45 companies, as part of these agreements, to improve or institute an ethics
or compliance program. As part of our ongoing review, we selected representatives from 25
of these companies to interview because the DPAs or NPAs these companies were involved
in were completed, and these agreements were the same ones that were entered into by the
DOJ offices we visited or interviewed by phone.

Page 3

GAO-09-636T

In summary, DOJ prosecutors with whom we spoke have based their
decisions on whether to enter into a DPA or an NPA and setting the terms
of these agreements on the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business
Organizations 7 —which includes guidance, for example, on factoring in a
company’s cooperation and collateral consequences that may result from
prosecution—as well as input from companies and regulatory agencies
and other factors. In addition, 10 of the 13 DOJ offices we included in our
review have made efforts to be transparent in their decision making by
issuing press releases that explain the reasons why they entered into these
agreements. However, prosecutors differed in their willingness to use
DPAs or NPAs. For instance, 3 of the 13 DOJ offices exclusively entered
into DPAs, and a prosecutor from 1 of these offices asserted that entering
into an NPA would be too lenient on the company. In addition, different
perspectives among DOJ officials regarding the definition of DPAs and
NPAs has led to inconsistent labeling of the agreements. For example, DOJ
offices differ in whether they consistently file agreements they refer to as
DPAs and the associated criminal charges in court, a key distinguishing
factor that is of concern to companies which prefer to enter into NPAs
because formal charges are not filed with the court. DOJ issued guidance
in March 2008 that defined DPAs as agreements that are filed in court and
NPAs as agreements that are not. However, of the 27 DPAs and NPAs
entered into since DOJ issued this guidance, 3 are not labeled in
accordance with the guidance and 7 are labeled as something other than
DPA or NPA; one reason for this is that not all DOJ offices view this
guidance as mandatory. DOJ plans to determine whether there is a need to
take additional steps to require consistency in the use of labels across
offices. We will continue to assess prosecutors’ willingness to use DPAs or
NPAs as part of our ongoing work.
Furthermore, to help ensure that companies were complying with the
terms of the DPAs and NPAs, DOJ employed several oversight
mechanisms, including requiring companies to hire an independent
monitor, who in most cases would periodically report to DOJ on the
company’s progress; or relying upon a monitor who was already hired by
the company as part of a civil or administrative agreement reached with a
federal regulatory agency. Although DOJ was not a party to the contracts
between companies and monitors, DOJ generally took the lead in selecting
and approving the monitors. DOJ’s process for selecting monitors typically

7

U.S. Department of Justice, United States Attorneys’ Manual § 9-28.000, Principles of
Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations.

Page 4

GAO-09-636T

involved collaboration among DOJ and company officials, and monitor
candidates were generally identified as a result of these officials’ personal
knowledge of individuals whose reputations suggested they would be
effective monitors, or recommendations given to these officials by
colleagues and professional associates who were familiar with
monitorship requirements. DOJ issued guidance in March 2008 to help
ensure that the monitor selection process is collaborative and the
selection is based on merit; this guidance also requires prosecutors to
obtain Deputy Attorney General approval for the monitor selection. While
the guidance established policies for the selection of independent
monitors, it does not require documentation of the process used or the
reasons for particular monitor selection decisions. Internal control
standards require that significant events, which could include how and
why monitors are selected, be clearly documented and the documentation
be readily available for examination. In addition, our prior work suggests
that documenting the reasons for selecting a particular monitor avoids the
appearance of favoritism. 8 Without requiring documentation, it will be
difficult for DOJ to validate whether its monitors have been selected in a
manner that is consistent with the guidance. Moreover, documenting its
process and reasons for selecting monitors could enhance DOJ’s ability to
instill public confidence in the monitor selection process.
While most of the companies we interviewed were satisfied with the
monitor selections, officials from 6 of the 12 companies we have spoken
with thus far that were required to hire a monitor took issue with the
scope of the monitor’s work, which seemed too expansive, thus making
the overall cost of the monitorship higher than the companies expected.
Four of these companies did not feel as if they had enough leverage to
address this issue with the monitors because, for example, the companies
felt that the monitors’ roles and responsibilities were not always clearly
defined in the DPA or NPA, thus limiting the basis on which companies
could assert that the monitor had expanded the scope of work. Some
companies preferred that DOJ assist them in addressing any concerns they
had about monitors. We have not yet been able to obtain the perspectives
of DOJ and monitors regarding these concerns, but plan to do so in our
ongoing review.
To enhance DOJ’s ability to ensure that monitors are selected according to
DOJ’s guidelines, we recommend that the Deputy Attorney General adopt

8

GAO/GGD-00-45.

Page 5

GAO-09-636T

internal procedures to document both the process used and reasons for
monitor selection decisions. We requested comments on a draft of this
statement from DOJ. DOJ did not provide official written comments to
include in the statement. However, in an email sent to us on June 18, 2009,
DOJ stated that the department agreed with our recommendation. DOJ
also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the
statement, as appropriate.

DOJ Based the Use
and Terms of DPAs
and NPAs on
Principles of Federal
Prosecution and
Other Factors, but
Prosecutors’ Different
Perspectives on DPAs
and NPAs Led to
Inconsistent Use and
Labeling

DOJ prosecutors cited the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business
Organizations as a major factor in their decision on entering into a DPA or
an NPA, and considered other factors, such as the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines, in determining the terms of these agreements. Prosecutors
also said that they generally negotiated these decisions with companies.
However, in making these decisions, prosecutors differed in their
willingness to use DPAs or NPAs. In addition, prosecutors’ different
perspectives on the definitions of DPAs and NPAs led to inconsistencies in
how they labeled the agreements. DOJ plans to determine the need to
require consistency in the use of the labels DPA and NPA.

Page 6

GAO-09-636T

DOJ Prosecutors Cited
Principles of Federal
Prosecution as Influential
in Their Decision on
Entering into a DPA or
NPA but Were Inconsistent
in their Use and Labeling
of Agreements

Prosecutors in all 13 DOJ offices we included in our review consistently
said that they based their decision on whether to enter into a DPA or NPA
rather than prosecute the company or decline to do so on the Principles of
Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations. First issued in 1999, these
principles are DOJ’s guidance to federal prosecutors on investigating,
charging, and negotiating a plea or other agreement with respect to
corporate crimes. The principles instruct prosecutors to consider nine
factors when determining how to treat a corporation suspected of criminal
misconduct and provide a number of actions prosecutors may take,
including declining to prosecute, entering into a DPA or NPA, or criminally
prosecuting, the corporation. The principles also include guidance on
when the nine factors most appropriately apply. The factors, and examples
of the manner in which they influence prosecutors’ choice of action, are
shown in figure 1 below. 9

9

GAO analysis based on the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations.
The examples given are illustrative of the manner in which prosecutors consider each
factor, and the circumstances of each case will determine the relevance and weight placed
on each factor.

Page 7

GAO-09-636T

Figure 1: How the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations Influence Prosecutors’ Decisions to Decline
Prosecution, Enter into a DPA or NPA, or Prosecute
Declination

Non-prosecution
agreement

Less serious

Deferred prosecution
agreement

Nature and seriousness
of the offense

More serious

Less pervasive

Wrongdoing within
corporation

More pervasive

Less
No history

Similar misconduct

Some history

Less disclosureMore
and cooperation

Disclosure of wrongdoing and willingness
to cooperatea

More
Less effective

Pre-existing
compliance program

Less effective

More
Less actions

Remedial actionsb

Fewer actions

Less collateral
Greater consequences

Collateral
consequencesc

Criminal
prosecution

Less cooperation

Fewer consequences

More
Less adequate

Prosecution of
responsible individuals

Less adequate

More
Less adequate

Civil or regulatory
enforcement actions

Less adequate

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations.

a

Willingness to cooperate includes cooperation in the government’s investigation of the company’s
agents.

Page 8

GAO-09-636T

b

Remedial actions include efforts to implement or improve an effective compliance program, pay
restitution, or discipline wrongdoers, among other things.

c

Collateral consequences include disproportionate harm to shareholders, pension holders,
employees, and others not proven personally culpable, and any impact on the public arising from
prosecution.

While the prosecutors with whom we spoke said that many of these
factors may have influenced their decision on entering into a DPA or NPA
in each case, they most frequently cited the company’s cooperation with
the investigation, the collateral consequences of a criminal prosecution,
and any remedial measures the company had taken or planned to take as
most important in their decision on entering into a DPA or NPA. For
instance, one prosecutor told us that the company’s cooperation is an
important factor in cases involving violations of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act 10 because obtaining the evidence from foreign countries in
these types of cases is a cumbersome and lengthy process that could take
up to 10 years. However, with the company’s cooperation, which may
entail assisting DOJ in tracing bribe payments through multiple overseas
accounts, DOJ may be able to obtain the evidence it needs in a matter of
weeks. With regard to collateral consequences, some DOJ prosecutors
explained, for example, that the potential harm that prosecution and
conviction of health care companies can have on innocent third parties
may be a key factor in their decision on entering into a DPA or NPA with
these kinds of companies. Federal law provides for health care companies
convicted of certain crimes to be debarred from—or no longer eligible to
participate in—federal health care programs. 11 Prosecutors in one office
said that they chose to enter into DPAs and an NPA simultaneously with
five orthopedic device companies that provided kickbacks to physicians
because, combined, these companies comprised the vast majority of the
market for hip and knee replacements; therefore, conviction and
debarment of these companies would have severely limited doctor and
patient access to replacement hips and knees. In terms of remedial
measures, prosecutors cited enhancements companies made to their

10

15 U.S.C. §§ 78m, 78dd-1 to -3, 78ff.

11

The Medicare and Medicaid Patients and Program Protection Act requires the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (HHS) to exclude—or debar—individuals or entities
convicted of certain program-related crimes or patient abuse, or convicted of certain
felonies related to health care fraud or a controlled substance, from participating in any
federal health care program. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7. The act also permits the secretary to
exclude, at the secretary’s discretion, individuals or entities convicted of other offenses,
including those related to fraud, obstruction of an investigation, or paying or receiving
kick-backs, among others. Id.

Page 9

GAO-09-636T

compliance programs, the termination of employees responsible for the
wrongdoing, and the company’s willingness to make payments to the
victims of the crime as influential in their decision on entering into a DPA
or NPA, rather than prosecute.
Our preliminary analysis suggests that officials from many of the DOJ
offices we met with have made efforts to be transparent about the basis
for their decisions on entering into DPAs or NPAs. For example, 10 of the
13 DOJ offices issued press releases explaining how they applied the
Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations when
deciding whether to enter into these agreements. 12 According to an official
in the Criminal Division’s Fraud section, its policy is to issue press
releases upon entering into DPAs and NPAs with companies related to the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which helps to increase transparency. As
part of our ongoing review, we will determine the extent to which DOJ
offices have additional policies—including supervisory review and
documentation of the reasons for their decisions to enter into a DPA or
NPA—that promote transparency and accountability regarding these
agreements.
DOJ’s reliance on the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business
Organizations was also apparent to many of the companies involved in the
DPAs and NPAs. Ten of the 17 company officials with whom we spoke as
of June 5, 2009, said that they were aware that DOJ based its decision on
whether to enter into a DPA or NPA on the factors articulated in the
Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations. 13 Moreover,
officials from 6 of these 10 companies reported making presentations to
DOJ based on the nine factors in order to influence prosecutors’ decisions
on using agreements in their cases, although companies generally reported
that the prosecutors made the ultimate decision about whether to enter
into a DPA or an NPA.
DOJ prosecutors also made decisions about which of these agreements—
DPA versus NPA—the office would enter into. A commonly accepted

12

Three additional DOJ offices issued press releases announcing that they had entered into
a DPA or NPA with a company, but the press releases did not discuss DOJ’s reasons for
entering into the agreements.

13

Three of these 17 companies did not provide information about their understanding of
DOJ’s consideration of the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations in
its decision whether to enter into a DPA or NPA or prosecute the company.

Page 10

GAO-09-636T

distinction between these two types of agreements is that a DPA involves
the filing of a charging document with the court, while, for an NPA,
charges are not filed with the court. Officials from 12 of the 17 companies
with whom we spoke preferred an NPA, largely because they viewed NPAs
as more advantageous from a public relations perspective for the
company. Some of these officials explained that, because a charge is not
filed in court in association with an NPA, companies are able to report that
they were not charged or prosecuted in the case; a DPA, on the other
hand, involves the filing of charges in court, which can result in greater
negative publicity for the company.
In choosing between a DPA and an NPA, prosecutors most frequently
reported considering the same factors they did when deciding whether to
enter into an agreement at all—namely, cooperation, collateral
consequences, and the companies’ remedial actions. For example,
prosecutors at 6 of the 13 DOJ offices said that they considered the
company’s cooperation in their investigation when deciding between a
DPA and an NPA. Prosecutors from one DOJ office said that once the
company learned it was the target of the office’s investigation, its lawyers
immediately called the office seeking to cooperate and continued to
cooperate extensively throughout the office’s ensuing 3-year investigation,
remaining in daily contact with the office and assisting in its investigation.
As a result, the DOJ office chose to enter into an NPA rather than a DPA
with the company. Not all of the 13 DOJ offices we included in our review
reported entering into both types of agreements. For instance, 3 of the 13
DOJ offices we included in our study, including one section of the
Criminal Division, exclusively entered into DPAs with companies. A
prosecutor from one of these offices said that he did not consider entering
into NPAs in any of its cases because he viewed NPAs as too lenient on the
company. We will continue to assess this issue as part of our ongoing
work.
Officials from 11 of the 17 companies with whom we spoke said that the
decision between a DPA and an NPA was exclusively made by DOJ, and
officials from 4 of these companies reported that DOJ’s reasons for
choosing between a DPA and an NPA were not made clear. On the other
hand, officials from 4 other companies said that the decision was a result
of negotiations between DOJ and the company. 14 Companies’ opinions

14

Two of the 17 companies did not discuss DOJ’s decision whether to enter into a DPA
versus an NPA.

Page 11

GAO-09-636T

varied on whether guidelines for choosing between a DPA and an NPA
would be beneficial. Officials from 5 of the 17 companies we interviewed
said that such guidelines would assist the companies in negotiating
between a DPA and an NPA with DOJ, whereas officials from three
companies believed that guidelines would make DOJ’s decision between a
DPA and an NPA more transparent to the company. Officials from 6
companies cited reasons why guidelines may not be useful, such as
concerns that such guidelines may not address the unique circumstances
of each case, would not be binding on DOJ prosecutors, and were not
necessary because DOJ’s rationale for choosing a DPA versus an NPA was
made clear to the company. 15 Prosecutors at 4 of the 13 offices we spoke
with stated that these guidelines would not be beneficial because they
need the flexibility to choose between a DPA and an NPA based on the
unique circumstances of each case.
In addition, prosecutors differ in whether they called their agreements
DPAs and NPAs. For example, prosecutors from 2 of the 13 offices with
whom we spoke told us that they are reluctant to file agreements in court
because of their understanding that some judges do not want the case to
be open on their dockets for the length of the deferral period. 16 While
prosecutors from one of these offices called the agreements it did not file
in court NPAs, the other office still labeled its agreements DPAs because it
viewed DPAs as agreements in which the company admits guilt, regardless
of whether charges are filed in court. Recognizing the inconsistent use of
the labels DPA and NPA, in March 2008, then Acting Deputy Attorney
General Craig Morford issued a memorandum—also known as the
“Morford Memo”—which stated that a DPA is typically predicated on the
filing of both a formal charging document and the agreement with the
appropriate court, while an NPA is an agreement maintained by the
parties, rather than being filed with the court. The Morford Memo also
states that clear and consistent use of these terms will help DOJ more
effectively identify and share best practices and track the use of DPAs and

15

Officials from the remaining four companies did not provide opinions on the usefulness
of such guidelines. An official from one company is counted in both the count of company
officials who believed that guidelines were useful and not useful because the official cited
both advantages and disadvantages to the guidelines.

16

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2), courts have the authority to approve the deferral of a
prosecution pursuant to a written agreement between the government and the defendant.
The court’s approval of such an agreement tolls the period during which an indictment
must be filed or a trial must commence, and the criminal charges remain on the court’s
docket for the deferral period.

Page 12

GAO-09-636T

NPAs. 17 However, based on our analysis of the agreements entered into
after DOJ issued this guidance, not all the agreements were labeled in
accordance with the definitions provided. Of the 27 agreements entered
into after DOJ issued this guidance, 20 were labeled as DPAs or NPAs in
the agreement or the press release announcing the agreement. Of these 20
agreements, 3 were not labeled in accordance with the definitions in the
guidance. 18 The remaining 7 agreements were labeled as agreement, case
disposition agreement, or pretrial diversion agreement. One reason for the
differences in the manner in which agreements are labeled is that not all
prosecutors believe that the use of the definitions of DPAs and NPAs in
the guidance is mandatory. For instance, a prosecutor at one office told us
that the office believed that the definitions were provided only for the
purposes of reading the Morford Memo and not as guidance for labeling
DPAs and NPAs going forward, while a prosecutor at another office
believed that the Morford Memo was intended as mandatory guidance on
the use of the definitions of DPAs and NPAs in the future. According to the
Office of the Deputy Attorney General, DOJ intends for the definitions in
the Morford Memo to be mandatory and followed consistently by
prosecutors for the purpose of internal reporting and tracking of these
agreements. However, DOJ does not intend for the definitions to inhibit
prosecutors’ ability to externally label these agreements in accordance
with the unique circumstances of a particular case or the practices and
preferences of a particular DOJ office, company, or judge. For instance,
the company may prefer that an agreement be labeled as “agreement”
rather than “deferred prosecution agreement” because companies believe
this label is less severe. Thus, the prosecutor may negotiate with the
company over the external label. Regardless of the external label on the
agreement, DOJ intends for prosecutors to track the agreement either as a
DPA or NPA in accordance with Morford Memo definitions. In addition,
DOJ is aware that there may be agreements that share some of the

17

Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and NonProsecution Agreements with Corporations, (March 7, 2008).

18

In addition, for 2 of the remaining 17 agreements, it is not clear how DOJ intends for the
agreements to be labeled. In these cases, the companies were indicted and the charges
were dismissed pursuant to the agreements; however, the agreements were not filed with
the court. As the Morford Memo defines DPAs and NPAs based on two elements: (1) the
filing of a formal charging document, which was done in these cases, and (2) the filing of
the agreement with the court, which was not done in these cases, it is unclear whether
these agreements should be labeled as DPAs or NPAs. In other cases where agreements
were executed after an indictment was filed and the charges were dismissed, prosecutors
have filed the agreements with the court. According to the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General, DOJ has not yet assessed how it intends for such agreements to be labeled.

Page 13

GAO-09-636T

elements of DPAs and NPAs but may not readily fit the Morford Memo
definitions—for instance, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General
explained that in one case the company had already been indicted on
some of the criminal charges associated with the agreement prior to the
agreement being reached, but had not been indicted on other charges
associated with the agreement, and therefore it was not clear whether the
agreement fit the definition of a DPA—in which charges are filed—or an
NPA—in which charges are not filed. Taking into account external
circumstances such as these, DOJ plans to determine whether there is a
need to take additional steps to require the use of the definitions, to
ensure consistency in the use of labels across offices.

DOJ Considers Input from
Company Negotiations and
Other Factors, such as the
Sentencing Guidelines,
When Setting the Terms of
DPAs and NPAs

Prosecutors in 11 of the 13 offices and officials from 14 of the 17
companies with whom we spoke reported that they negotiated at least one
of the terms in their DPAs and NPAs, including monetary payments to
victims or the government, the duration of the agreement, or compliance
program requirements, as well as additional terms, such as monetary
donations to foundations or educational institutions. 19 Furthermore,
according to prosecutors in all 13 DOJ offices, they considered other
factors, such as guidance provided in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 20

19

We conducted content analysis of our interviews to identify the factors considered in
setting the terms and whether negotiations occurred. In both DOJ and company interviews,
some officials were not able to discuss the process for setting each specific term, or did not
provide responses. The numbers presented represent those officials who specifically
reported information on the process they used in setting the terms of the DPA or NPA.

20
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (“Sentencing Guidelines”) was developed by the United States Sentencing
Commission, an independent body within the judicial branch of the federal government
charged with promulgating guidelines for federal sentencing. 28 U.S.C. § 994. In 2005, the
Supreme Court found the Sentencing Guidelines, which had previously been binding for
federal judges to follow in sentencing criminal defendants, to be advisory in nature. See
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Regardless of their advisory nature, judges are
still required to calculate properly and consider the Sentencing Guidelines and other
sentencing goals, and sentences properly calculated within the guidelines range are entitled
to a presumption of reasonableness upon appellate review. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United
States v. Rita, 551 347-48 (2007); Booker, 543 U.S. at 264: see also Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007) (stating that “the Guidelines should be the starting point
and the initial benchmark”). The Sentencing Guidelines contain promulgated sentencing
guidelines, policy statements, and commentary applicable to business organizations, such
as ranges and considerations for applying fines and requirements for an effective
compliance and ethics program. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 8B21, 8C1.14.11.

Page 14

GAO-09-636T

or the terms included in other DPAs or NPAs as examples, when
determining the terms of their agreements.
Monetary payments: Of the 57 DPAs and NPAs we reviewed, 45 required
monetary payments—which may include restitution to victims of the
crime, forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime, and monetary penalties
imposed by DOJ—ranging from $30,000 to $615 million. While the
remaining 12 agreements did not require such payments, in 3 agreements
the companies were required to make payments to organizations or
individuals that were not directly affected by the crime; 21 for 7 agreements
the company had already agreed to make payments as part of a separate
agreement with another agency or DOJ division, such as the Securities and
Exchange Commission or DOJ’s Civil Division; and for 1 agreement, two of
the company’s subsidiaries had already agreed to make monetary
payments as part of a plea agreement and a DPA. In the remaining
agreement, the company was not required to make a payment and did not
enter into a civil settlement in order to obtain release from its civil liability
in the case. In setting the payment amounts in DPAs and NPAs,
prosecutors reported that they considered the following: (1) the section of
the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on determining fines for business
organizations, which includes consideration of the seriousness of the
offense, culpability of the organization, and the company’s cooperation,
among other factors; (2) monetary gains to the company or losses to its
victims as a result of its crime; and (3) the company’s ability to pay.
Prosecutors in 6 of the 12 offices with whom we spoke whose DPAs and
NPAs included monetary payments reported that they negotiated the
monetary payments with the other party. 22 While representatives of 7 of
the 13 companies we interviewed that were required to make monetary
payments told us that they were able to negotiate the monetary payment
with DOJ, representatives of 4 companies told us that they were not able

21

Payments or donations required to be paid to charitable, educational, community, or
other organizations or individuals that were not victims of the crime or do not provide
services to redress the harm caused by the crime are classified and discussed in this report
as extraordinary restitution and, although they involve monetary payments, are not
included in the count of agreements with monetary payments reported here.

22

None of the DPAs or NPAs entered into by one office with which we spoke included
monetary payments.

Page 15

GAO-09-636T

to negotiate the payment. 23 Representatives from 2 of these companies did
not express concern over the lack of negotiation—1 said that DOJ’s
reasons for setting the payment were made clear to the company, while
the other said that the company had no reason to question the payment
figure DOJ set. One of these companies reported that DOJ did not provide
its rationale for the monetary payment, and the remaining company did
not provide opinions about the process by which the payment was set.
Duration: The durations of DPAs and NPAs have ranged from 3 months
to 5 years. 24 Prosecutors at 9 of the 13 DOJ offices with whom we spoke
based the duration of the agreement on the amount of time they believed
was necessary for the company to correct the problems underlying the
criminal conduct. For instance, one prosecutor said that the company was
replacing its old computer billing system, which had overbilled a federal
agency, resulting in the criminal conduct underlying the DPA. The
prosecutor set the duration at 27 months in order to allow the company to
install the new billing system and ensure it was functioning appropriately,
and not continuing to overbill the agency. Prosecutors at 5 of the 13
offices we visited also reported that they negotiated with companies over
the duration of the agreement. 25 On the other hand, companies that had
agreements with 5 other DOJ offices told us that they did not negotiate the
duration, although none of these companies expressed concern over the
duration of the agreement. For instance, an official from one of these
companies said that the company would have preferred a shorter duration,
but was satisfied with the duration DOJ set. Prosecutors in 3 DOJ offices
also told us that they considered the duration of other DPAs or NPAs as
examples when setting the duration of their agreements.
Compliance program requirements: Forty-five of the 57 DPAs and
NPAs we reviewed included requirements that the company improve or
enhance its compliance program, while 12 did not include this type of
requirement. According to prosecutors in 6 of the 13 DOJ offices we met

23

Officials from the two remaining companies did not discuss DOJ’s process for setting
monetary payments in the DPA or NPA. Four of the companies we interviewed were not
required to make payments to the government, to compensate victims of the crime, or to
forfeit ill-gotten gains as a result of the crime, and therefore did not discuss DOJ’s process
for setting monetary payments in the DPA or NPA.

24

One of the 57 agreements we reviewed did not specify the duration.

25

Prosecutors at the remaining eight DOJ offices told us that they could not recall the
process by which the duration of the agreement was determined or we did not obtain a
response from them on this issue.

Page 16

GAO-09-636T

with, they required companies to enhance or implement a compliance
program in order to reform the company, prevent further misconduct, or
help establish and publicize a compliance program standard for the
industry. 26 In deciding not to include compliance requirements,
prosecutors reported that they considered whether the company that
committed the wrongdoing could engage in such criminal conduct again.
For instance, one prosecutor said that a compliance program was not
required as part of an agreement because the company’s violations
occurred during its participation in the United Nation’s Oil-for-Food
Program, which was no longer in existence when the agreement was
signed. In addition, prosecutors were aware that 2 of the companies
involved in DPAs or NPAs that did not include compliance program
requirements had entered into agreements with other regulatory agencies
that did include such requirements. When developing compliance
requirements in DPAs and NPAs, prosecutors most commonly (8 of 13
offices) worked with regulatory agencies with relevant jurisdiction over
the companies—such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement for issues
related to the hiring of illegal immigrants, the Environmental Protection
Agency for environmental crimes, or the Securities and Exchange
Commission for issues involving accounting and financial fraud—to
develop the compliance requirements included in the agreement. Several
prosecutors and company officials also reported that they negotiated over
the compliance requirements in the DPA or NPA. For instance, one
company official said that DOJ initially developed the compliance program
requirements, but when the company raised concerns about the
practicality and effectiveness of the requirements, DOJ worked with the
company to revise them. In the end, the official felt that the company’s
enhanced program was a best practice in the industry.
Extraordinary restitution: DPAs and NPAs have also included
additional terms, such as payments or services to organizations or
individuals not directly affected by the crime; these payments are
sometimes referred to as extraordinary restitution. Of the 57 DPAs and
NPAs we reviewed, 4 included such terms. Prosecutors and companies
with whom we spoke about these provisions generally reported that the
provisions were determined through negotiations between the two parties.
In addition, these prosecutors were supportive of including extraordinary
restitution provisions in DPAs and NPAs because, for example, they

26

Prosecutors in the remaining seven DOJ offices did not comment specifically on why
they included compliance program requirements in DPAs or NPAs.

Page 17

GAO-09-636T

believe such terms can help improve the availability of services in the
community and prevent similar misconduct from occurring in the future,
not just within the company, but in a larger context. For instance, 1 DPA
required the organization to provide uncompensated medical care to the
state’s residents, while an NPA required the company to provide funding
for a not-for-profit organization to support projects designed to improve
the quality and affordability of health care services in the state. Another
DPA required a company that had not complied with water treatment
regulations to provide an endowment of $1 million to the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy for the purposes of enhancing the study of maritime
environmental enforcement, with an emphasis on compliance,
enforcement, and ethics issues. In May 2008, DOJ issued guidance
prohibiting the use of terms requiring payments to charitable, educational,
community, or other organizations or individuals that are not the victims
of the criminal activity or are not providing services to redress the harm
caused by the criminal conduct because the use of such terms could create
actual or perceived conflicts of interest or other ethical issues. Based on
our preliminary analysis, none of the 25 DPAs and NPAs that were entered
into since this guidance was issued required companies to make payments
or perform services for individuals or organizations that were not directly
harmed by the crime. 27
While most company officials stated that they had input into, or were able
to negotiate over, whether to enter into a DPA or NPA and the terms of the
agreements, officials from nine of these companies reported that DOJ had
greater power in the negotiations than the company because, for instance,
if the negotiations were not successful, DOJ could have proceeded with
prosecution. However, prosecutors at 4 of the 13 offices with whom we
spoke noted that if companies had concerns about the terms of their DPAs
or NPAs, they could express them to their office, or appeal them to a

27

Although three agreements included payments to third parties to fund environmental
projects, enforcement efforts, and initiatives, they appear to be encompassed by the
exception for the use of community service as a condition of probation for environmental
prosecutions, pursuant to guidance from DOJ’s Environmental and Natural Resources
Division. See U.S. Department of Justice, United States Attorneys’ Manual § 9-16.325, Plea
Agreements, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, Non-Prosecution Agreements, and
“Extraordinary Restitution.” We will review this guidance to understand the nature of these
payments. DPAs and NPAs have also included additional terms other than the ones
discussed in this testimony, such as the provision that if the company complies with the
agreement, not only would the specific DOJ office that entered into the agreement not
prosecute the company, but the company would not be prosecuted by any DOJ office; or a
provision that the company would conduct public training workshops throughout the state.

Page 18

GAO-09-636T

higher level within DOJ. Representatives from six companies expressed
reluctance to appeal any concerns they had with the terms of the
agreement. Officials from two of these companies explained that appealing
to a higher level in DOJ could negatively affect their interactions with the
prosecutors involved in the case. On the other hand, officials from four
companies told us that they would have been comfortable appealing the
terms, if needed. 28 As part of our ongoing review, we will continue to
assess the extent of the companies’ role in setting the terms of the
agreements and obtain DOJ’s perspective on this issue.

DOJ Oversaw
Companies’
Compliance through
the Use of
Independent
Monitors,
Coordination with
Regulatory Agencies,
and Other Means

In 26 of the 57 DPAs or NPAs we have reviewed to date, prosecutors
required that the company hire, at its own expense, an independent
monitor to assist the company in establishing a compliance program,
review the effectiveness of a company’s internal control measures, and
otherwise meet the terms of the agreements. In the remaining cases, DOJ
coordinated with the relevant regulatory agency already monitoring or
overseeing the company, or used other means, such as requiring
companies to certify their compliance, to ensure the terms were met. 29
When deciding whether a monitor was needed to help oversee the
development or operations of a company’s compliance program, DOJ
considered factors such as the availability of DOJ resources for this
oversight, the level of expertise among DOJ prosecutors to monitor
compliance in more technical or complex areas, and existing regulatory
oversight. 30 Of the 13 DOJ offices we met with, 10 utilized monitors.

28

Three additional companies did not believe an appeals process was available to them. We
did not discuss the option of appealing the terms of the agreement with the remaining five
companies. One company is counted twice because the official would have been
comfortable appealing to the U.S. Attorney, but expressed reluctance to appeal concerns
with the agreement to DOJ.
29

One agreement required the company to retain the services of its outside counsel as a
non-independent compliance consultant for the duration of the agreement. The
responsibilities of the consultant were similar to those of the independent monitors
required in other agreements, and the consultant reported directly to DOJ, but we did not
include this agreement in our count of agreements with independent monitors.

30

The Morford Memo states that monitors should only be used where appropriate given the
facts and circumstances of a particular matter—for example, it may be appropriate to use a
monitor where a company does not have an effective internal compliance program, or
where it needs to establish necessary internal controls. In addition, the guidance requires
that—prior to executing an agreement that includes a monitor—prosecutors must, at a
minimum, notify the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department Component Head.

Page 19

GAO-09-636T

Prosecutors in four of these nine offices cited as a reason for requiring an
independent monitor the limited time and resources their offices had to
oversee a company’s compliance program, make appropriate
recommendations, and reform the company’s compliance behavior,
whereas monitors often have an entire staff available to them to perform
these activities. Prosecutors in five of the nine DOJ offices we met with
that had utilized monitors, cited as a reason for requiring an independent
monitor the limited expertise the office had in overseeing company
compliance in a particular area of misconduct. For example, prosecutors
in one office stated that part of the company’s wrongdoing dealt with
commodities trading, and while they did not have this background, the
monitor selected by the office had commodities trading experts on his
staff. Other prosecutors cited the need for technical expertise regarding
misconduct in a particular geographic region to oversee company
compliance effectively—resources and skills which DOJ prosecutors did
not have—as the reason to require that a company hire a monitor.
In 22 of the 26 agreements requiring an independent monitor, the monitor
was required to file written reports with DOJ prosecutors. 31 The frequency
of reporting to DOJ prosecutors varied by agreement, with 13 monitors
required to report every 3 or 4 months; 2 monitors required to file
semiannual reports; 5 monitors required to file annual reports or an initial
report with annual or semiannual follow-up reports; 1 monitor required to
report within 120 days of entering into the agreement; and 1 monitor
required to report no later than 45 days and 90 days after the
commencement of the agreement, on or before 90 prior to termination of
the agreement and at such other times as designated by DOJ. 32 For two of
the three agreements overseen by an independent monitor where the
agreement did not specifically require written reports, the prosecutors we
spoke with said that they typically met frequently with the monitor
themselves to discuss the company’s progress towards fulfilling the

31

The Morford Memo advises U.S. Attorneys Offices and other DOJ litigation divisions that
it may be appropriate for the monitor to report in writing periodically to the government
and the company regarding the monitor’s activities and the company’s compliance with the
agreement, but does not require written reports nor does it specify the frequency of
reporting. The Morford Memo requires, however, that the monitor have discretion to
communicate with the government as he or she deems appropriate.

32

For three of the agreements, the agreement did not clearly state whether the monitor was
required to file written reports with DOJ prosecutors. An additional agreement required
reporting to another federal agency and not specifically to DOJ.

Page 20

GAO-09-636T

agreements. 33 We have not assessed whether the monitors’ reports were
filed in a timely fashion or covered the elements required by the
agreements, but plan to obtain information on monitor reporting as part of
our ongoing review.
In one instance, the district court judge also received the reports filed with
federal prosecutors by the independent monitor because, in that district,
the office typically involved the court in the selection of the independent
monitor, and the judge had issued an order requiring quarterly reporting to
the court. We are in the process of collecting information from federal
judges who have been involved with DPAs to determine the extent to
which judges received monitor reports, or assessments of these reports
provided by DOJ, in their oversight of DPAs.
In 18 of the 57 agreements we reviewed to date, there was a requirement
for companies to make improvements to existing ethics and compliance
programs or implement new programs, but there was no requirement for
companies to hire an independent monitor to review the effectiveness of
these programs or the companies’ compliance with the terms of the
agreement. In 4 cases, the company had signed a civil or administrative
agreement with a federal regulatory agency as part of a settlement related
to the underlying criminal misconduct, which required the company to
hire an independent consultant, review organization or compliance officer.
In such cases, DOJ officials said that they depended on the reports of
these regulatory monitors or the regulatory agency to assure themselves of
companies’ compliance in part to avoid unnecessary duplication. In the
other 14 cases, where the company had not signed a settlement agreement
with a regulatory agency requiring an independent monitor, DOJ officials
stated that they used other methods to determine companies’ compliance
with the agreement. In 9 of the 14 cases, they stated that they depended on
the regulatory agency to inform them if, in the course of its regulatory
oversight, the agency discovered the company was violating any of the
provisions of the agreement. For example, in 2 DPAs we reviewed where
financial institutions failed to maintain effective anti-money laundering
programs, DOJ prosecutors said that they communicated frequently with
financial regulators, reviewed reports submitted to the regulators, and
spoke to the regulators before the agreements were completed. In the

33

Prosecutors involved in one of these two agreements said that they also received written
reports from the monitor. Prosecutors involved in the remaining agreement did not provide
information on whether the monitor had submitted reports or the extent of DOJ
communication with the monitor.

Page 21

GAO-09-636T

remaining 5 cases, the prosecutors said they reviewed documents
submitted by the company or depended on the companies to self-certify
that they had complied with the provisions of the agreement.
For the remaining 12 of the 57 agreements that did not require companies
to improve or expand ethics and compliance programs, DOJ offices
conducted oversight through various mechanisms, including:
•

•

•

Assuring that monetary penalties or restitution payments were paid in
full. For example, an accounting firm agreed to make restitution
payments to a fund established to repay wronged investors, and to pay
an administrator to administer the fund. The administrator provided
reports to the office on the names of victims that received payments
from the fund, and the amount received.
Assuring that the company cooperated with DOJ in continuing
investigations, including responding to information requests from
federal prosecutors. For example, an energy trading company in a DPA
with one office agreed to continue to cooperate with federal
prosecutors by providing information relevant to ongoing
investigations in the natural gas industry.
Requiring the company to certify that it had followed certain
requirements in the agreement. For example, one pharmaceutical
company was required to certify that it had not filled prescriptions for
off-label uses of one of its drugs. In that case, the prosecutors stated
that it would be easy to examine the company’s prescription records at
the end of the agreement to determine if the certification was accurate,
and if not, the company would additionally be liable for falsely
certifying compliance.

Page 22

GAO-09-636T

Prosecutors We
Contacted Varied in
the Extent to which
They Involved
Companies in the
Monitor Selection
Process, and DOJ
Does Not Require
Documentation of the
Process and Reasons
for Selecting
Monitors, Making It
Difficult to Determine
whether Monitor
Selection Guidance Is
Followed

We reviewed 26 agreements that required the company to hire a monitor.
Although DOJ was not a party to the contracts between companies and
monitors, DOJ generally took the lead in approving the monitors.
Specifically, according to officials in the 10 DOJ offices we contacted that
entered into DPAs and NPAs that required monitors, DOJ had the final say
in selecting the monitor for all but one of these agreements. However,
according to these officials, the monitors were not selected by any one
individual; rather, the decision was made among several DOJ officials and,
in most instances, companies were able to provide input to DOJ on who
the monitor should be, although the extent of company involvement
varied. 34
•

•

•

For 12 of the agreements we reviewed, DOJ prosecutors said that the
companies proposed a single monitor or a list of several monitors from
which DOJ could choose. In all of these cases, DOJ officials said they
were able to select an appropriate monitor for the DPA or NPA based
on the company’s suggestions. 35
For three of the agreements we reviewed, DOJ prosecutors said that
they and the company developed separate lists of monitor candidates,
shared their lists with one another, and worked together to choose the
monitor.
For seven of these agreements, DOJ prosecutors said that they chose
the monitor. For five of the seven agreements, according to DOJ
officials, the prosecutors selected the monitors and later provided the
companies with the opportunity to meet with the selected individual.
According to the prosecutors, they gave companies the option to
object to DOJ’s monitor selection, but none of the companies did so.
However, our preliminary work suggests that at least one company
reported that they did not have this opportunity. For one of these
agreements, DOJ officials said that they sought the companies’ input
on monitor qualifications before making their selection. For another of
these agreements, it was unclear whether the company had any
discussion with DOJ regarding monitor qualifications before DOJ
selected the monitor. 36

34

Representatives from 7 of the 12 companies we interviewed that had monitors confirmed
that they had some input in monitor selection and 5 companies said they were not involved
in monitor selection.

35

In two cases, the monitor has not yet been selected.

36

In one agreement, the company selected the monitor with no involvement from DOJ.
Prosecutors involved in the three remaining agreements did not provide information on the
extent of company involvement in the monitor selection process.

Page 23

GAO-09-636T

For the agreements we reviewed where DOJ officials identified monitor
candidates, the selection processes employed across these offices were
similar. DOJ officials generally stated that in these instances, they
identified monitor candidates based on their personal knowledge of
individuals whose reputations suggest they would be effective monitors,
or through recommendations from colleagues or professional associates
who were familiar with requirements of a monitorship. After identifying
several candidates, the prosecutors established a committee, which
generally consisted of individuals such as the prosecutors involved in the
case, the DOJ office section chief, and sometimes the Chief Assistant U.S.
Attorney or a Deputy U.S. Attorney. The committees were responsible for
evaluating the candidates and selecting a monitor. Prosecutors said they
evaluated candidates based on whether they had any conflicts of interest
with the company and their qualifications and expertise in a particular
area.
Officials from the five companies we interviewed who identified monitor
candidates for DOJ approval used a similar process as DOJ. For example,
officials from one company reached out to their associates who they
believed could help them identify individuals who would be effective
monitors. Company officials said that they were looking for a monitor with
experience working with DOJ and knowledge of the specific area of law
that the company violated. From these suggestions, the company
developed a list of candidates to interview, and based on the results of the
interviews, generated a shorter list of candidates from which DOJ would
choose the monitor.
In selecting the monitors, DOJ sometimes sought input from federal
regulatory agencies. According to prosecutors in DOJ’s Criminal Division,
it is not uncommon for the division to collaborate with agencies such as
the Securities and Exchange Commission to select a monitor to serve
under agreements both agencies have reached with a company,
particularly if the agreements contain similar requirements for the
company. The prosecutors said having two different monitors could be
cost-prohibitive and result in duplication of effort.
Courts were rarely involved in monitor selection. Of the 26 agreements we
reviewed that had monitor requirements, 2 required court approval of the
selected monitor. 37 One of the 13 DOJ offices included in our review has a

37

Of these 26 agreements, 7 were not filed in court.

Page 24

GAO-09-636T

formal monitor selection policy. According to the prosecutors in this
office, court involvement in monitor selection limits the possibility of
favoritism in monitor selection by the office. The policy requires
prosecutors to compile a list of potential monitor candidates and submit
the list to the court, where a district judge would then appoint a monitor
from this list. We plan to solicit input on court involvement from the
judiciary as a part of our ongoing review.
When we asked DOJ officials, company representatives, and monitors
about other methods to prevent the appearance of favoritism in monitor
selection, such as developing a national list of prescreened monitors from
which DOJ would make its selection, they identified both advantages and
disadvantages. Some of the advantages identified were (1) assurance that
the monitors have been prescreened and are considered qualified by the
government, (2) increased consistency in the monitor selection process,
and (3) the ability to expedite the monitor selection process. The
disadvantages they cited were (1) not all of the monitors on the list would
have the specific expertise required for certain cases, such as commodities
trading expertise; (2) based on their own experiences searching for
monitors, it is likely that many of the monitors on a prescreened list will
have conflicts of interest with the companies—such as the monitor having
previously provided services for the company in an unrelated matter; (3)
use of the list would limit company input in monitor selection; and (4) use
of the list may actually increase the likelihood of favoritism because DOJ
officials could populate the list with their associates, and could exclude
other qualified monitor candidates. As a part of our ongoing work, we will
continue to identify other models that aim to reduce favoritism in monitor
selection. For example, one company official with whom we spoke cited
the International Association of Independent Private Sector Inspectors
General (IAIPSIG) as a possible model for developing a national pool of
monitors. Members of this association are individuals or private sector
firms with legal, auditing, investigative, and management skills who are
available to be employed by an organization to ensure compliance with
relevant laws and regulations. According to IAIPSIG, members—who may
be retained by the government to prevent fraud in contracting and by
private firms conducting internal investigations—must also adhere to the
principles and standards in IAIPSIG’s code of ethics which require, among
other things, that its members remain independent of both the monitored
entity and the entity to which it is reporting, and refrain from accepting or
performing work involving an actual or potential conflict of interest.
In March 2008, the Acting Deputy Attorney General issued the Morford
Memo to help ensure that the monitor selection process is collaborative,

Page 25

GAO-09-636T

results in the selection of a highly qualified monitor suitable for the
assignment, avoids potential and actual conflicts of interest, and is carried
out in a manner that instills public confidence. 38 The guidance requires
U.S. Attorneys Offices and other DOJ litigation divisions to establish ad
hoc or standing committees, consisting of the office’s ethics advisor,
criminal or section chief, and at least one other experienced prosecutor to
consider the candidates for each monitorship. DOJ components are also
reminded to follow federal conflict of interest guidelines 39 and to check
monitor candidates for potential conflict of interest relationships with the
company. In addition, the names of all selected monitors must be
submitted to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General for final approval.
According to the Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, this
approval is required in order to ensure public integrity in the monitor
selection process.
While the Morford Memo established policies and guidance for the
selection of independent monitors, including that the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General approve the monitor selection, the memo does not
require documentation of the process used and the reasons for selecting a
specific monitor. Standards for internal control in the federal government
state that all transactions and significant events, which could include the
selection of monitors, should be clearly documented and that the
documentation be readily available for examination. In addition, our prior
work suggests that documenting the reasons for selecting a particular
monitor helps avoid the appearance of favoritism and verify that selection
processes and practices were followed. 40 Since the release of the Morford
Memo, we have identified two DPAs and NPAs that DOJ entered into for
which monitors have been selected. 41 According to the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General, which is responsible for approving monitor
selections, the United States Attorneys Offices involved in these two cases
submitted e-mails to predecessors in the Office of the Deputy Attorney

38

The Morford Memo was released after most of the agreements we reviewed were entered
into.
39

See 18 U.S.C. § 208 and 5 C.F.R. pt 2635.

40

GAO/GGD-00-45.

41

At the time of our review, we identified an additional four DPAs and NPAs that were
entered into since the Morford Memo and required the selection of a monitor. According to
DOJ, monitors have not yet been selected for these agreements. For one additional DPA,
the department has determined that the agreement, which requires an external auditor, is
not subject to Morford Memo guidelines regarding monitor selection.

Page 26

GAO-09-636T

General regarding their proposed monitor selections. DOJ provided us
with a summary of the correspondence from the prosecutors seeking
Deputy Attorney General approval. While the correspondence in one case
included information describing how prosecutors adhered to the
processes required by DOJ guidance, the correspondence in the other case
did not. For instance, the correspondence did not describe the
membership of the committee that considered the monitor candidate. In
addition, because the approval of one of the monitors was relayed via
telephone and no documentation was readily available at the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General, DOJ officials had to reach out to the individuals
who were involved in the telephone call to obtain information regarding
the monitor’s approval. As this example demonstrates, without requiring
documentation of the process used and the reasons for selecting a
particular monitor, it may be difficult for DOJ to validate whether its
monitors have been selected and approved across DOJ offices in a manner
that is consistent with the Morford Memo, which established monitor
selection principles intended to instill public confidence.
In commenting on a draft of this report in June 2009, the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General agreed that documenting the process used and
reasons for monitor selection would be beneficial. However, because the
office has not had to approve any monitor selections since the presidential
transition in January 2009, the office did not believe it was in a position to
determine exactly what internal procedures should be adopted to
document the monitor selection process until it had reviewed more
selection proposals. From January 2009 through May 2009, DOJ had four
ongoing agreements that required the appointment of a monitor where, to
date, the monitors have not yet been selected. We expect that when the
Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviews the monitor proposals for
these agreements, once they are submitted, the office will be in a better
position to establish procedures for documenting monitor selection
decisions.

Page 27

GAO-09-636T

Companies We
Contacted Reported
that Monitors
Generally Charged
Their Customary
Rates but Raised
Concerns about
Scope of Monitors’
Work; Companies
Would Like DOJ to
Help Them Address
Issues with Monitors

Of the 12 companies we have met with so far for which DOJ required a
monitor, 6 told us that they did not have any concerns about the rate
charged by the monitor, 3 expressed concern that the monitor’s rate was
high, and the remaining 3 did not comment on the monitor’s rate. 42
Officials from 6 of the 12 companies perceived that the monitors were
either charging their customary rates or, in two additional cases, lower
rates because the companies could not afford the customary rates. 43 While
the companies we met with generally did not express concern about the
monitors’ rates, they reported concerns with other aspects of the
monitorship that affected the overall compensation to the monitor.
Specifically, 6 of the 12 companies raised concerns about the scope of the
monitor’s responsibilities or the amount of work completed by the
monitor; and four of the six companies reported that they did not feel they
could adequately address their concerns by discussing them with the
monitors. For instance, 1 company said that the monitor had a large
number of staff assisting him on the engagement, and he and his staff
attended more meetings than the company felt was necessary, some of
which were unrelated to the monitor responsibilities delineated in the
agreement. As a result, the company believes that the overall cost of the
monitorship was higher than it needed to be. While the company
reportedly tried to negotiate with the monitor over the scope of work and
number of staff involved, the company stated that the monitor was
generally unwilling to make changes. The company did not feel that there
was a mechanism at DOJ whereby it could raise concerns regarding
monitor costs because the costs were not delineated in the agreement.
Instead, the costs were identified in an agreement between the company
and the monitor and, therefore, DOJ was not responsible for overseeing
the costs of the monitorship. Another company reported that its monitor
did not complete the work required in the agreement in the first phase of
the monitorship, which necessitated the monitor completing more work
than the company anticipated in the final phase of the monitorship. This
led to unexpectedly high costs in the final phase. The company official
believed it was DOJ’s responsibility, not the company’s, to address this
issue because the monitor had failed to complete the requirements DOJ
had delineated in the agreement. As part of our ongoing review, we plan to
obtain the perspectives of DOJ officials and monitors, in addition to

42

An official from one of these companies did not comment on the monitor’s rate
specifically because this individual was not involved in early negotiations with the monitor.

43

The companies we spoke with did not always have precise information on the monitor’s
customary rates.

Page 28

GAO-09-636T

companies, regarding the amount and scope of the monitors’ work and the
most appropriate mechanisms companies can use to address any concerns
they may have related to this issue.
Two company officials reported that they had little leverage to negotiate
fees, monitoring costs, or the monitor’s roles and responsibilities with the
monitor because the monitor had the ability to find that the company was
not in compliance with the DPA or NPA. Officials from three companies
suggested that DOJ should play a larger role in helping companies address
concerns with their monitors. For example, one company official said that
DOJ may need to develop a mechanism for companies to raise issues
regarding their monitors without fear of retribution, while another
company official suggested that DOJ meet routinely with the company to
allow for a conversation between the company and DOJ about the
monitoring relationship. Two companies felt that having a sense of the
potential overall costs at the beginning of the monitorship, such as
developing a work plan and estimated costs, would be beneficial for
companies. For instance, one of these officials said that this would help
establish clear expectations for the monitor and minimize unanticipated
costs. DOJ has taken some actions which may address these concerns. In 2
of the 26 DPAs or NPAs we discussed with DOJ that had monitoring
requirements, the monitor was required to submit a work plan prior to the
monitor’s first review of the company. Additionally, an official in the
Criminal Division Fraud Section said that it is the section’s general
practice to meet with the monitor to discuss the monitor’s work plan. The
Morford Memo also instructs DOJ prosecutors to tailor the scope of the
monitor’s duties to address the misconduct in each specific case, which
the memo indicates may align the expense of the monitorship with the
failure that led to the company’s misconduct covered by the agreement.
However, we have not yet been able to evaluate how these actions may
address companies’ concerns. We will continue to obtain information on
the ways in which company concerns regarding the monitors’
responsibilities and workload can be addressed.
We are conducting a survey of companies to solicit more comprehensive
information on monitors’ fees, total compensation and roles and
responsibilities, as well as the companies’ perceptions of the monitor costs
in relation to the work performed. We will integrate these survey results
into our final report. In addition, we are continuing to assess the potential
need for additional guidance or other improvements in the use of DPAs
and NPAs in our ongoing work.

Page 29

GAO-09-636T

Conclusions

One of DOJ’s chief missions is to ensure the integrity of the nation’s
business organizations and protect the public from corporate corruption.
DOJ has increasingly employed the tools of DPAs and NPAs in order to
carry out this mission, and has recognized the potential long-term benefits
to the company and the public of assigning an independent monitor to
oversee implementation of a DPA or NPA. On the other hand, DOJ has also
acknowledged concerns about the cost to the company of hiring a monitor
and perceived favoritism in the selection of monitors, and thus the
resultant need to instill public confidence in the monitor selection process.
DOJ has made efforts to allay these concerns by issuing guidance requiring
prosecutors to create committees to consider monitor candidates;
evaluate potential conflicts of interest the monitor may have with the
government and the company; and obtain approval of selected candidates
from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. Nevertheless, more could
be done to avoid the appearance of favoritism. Requiring that the process
and reasons for selecting a specific monitor be documented would assist
DOJ in validating that monitors were chosen in accordance with DOJ’s
guidance that is intended to help assure the public that monitors were
chosen based on their merits and through a collaborative process.
We are continuing to assess the potential need for additional guidance or
other improvements in the use of DPAs and NPAs in our ongoing work.

Recommendation for
Executive Action

To enhance DOJ’s ability to ensure that monitors are selected according to
DOJ’s guidelines, we recommend that the Deputy Attorney General adopt
internal procedures to document both the process used and reasons for
monitor selection decisions.

Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

We requested comments on a draft of this statement from DOJ. DOJ did
not provide official written comments to include in the statement.
However, in an email sent to us on June 18, 2009, DOJ stated that the
department agreed with our recommendation. DOJ also provided technical
comments, which we incorporated into the statement, as appropriate.

GAO Contact and
Staff
Acknowledgments

For questions about this statement, please contact Eileen R. Larence at
(202) 512-8777 or larencee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement
include Kristy N. Brown, Jill Evancho, Tom Jessor, Danielle Pakdaman,

Page 30

GAO-09-636T

and Janet Temko as well as Katherine Davis, Sarah Kaczmarek, Amanda
Miller, Janay Sam, and Mandana Yousefi.

(440798)

Page 31

GAO-09-636T

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO
posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact:

Congressional
Relations

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Please Print on Recycled Paper