On
DPAs provide a mechanism by which an organisation can avoid prosecution for certain economic offences through an agreement with the relevant prosecuting authority. The conduct which is the subject of this DPA relates to the alleged failure by GVC (the predecessor to
The DPA itself entails
-
Pay a financial penalty and disgorgement of profit totalling Ł585 million.
- Pay HMRC and the CPS' costs, totalling Ł10 million.
- Make a charitable payment of Ł20 million.
- Comply with other obligations outlined in the DPA, which include cooperation obligations and extensive corporate compliance obligations for a period of four years.
- There had been a 'wholesale change of senior management and approach', as well as an acknowledgement by the company that it was necessary to overhaul its culture and practices. The court went so far as stating that there had been 'sweeping changes to the compliance procedures in place'.
It is of note that there were two 'significant precursors' to the DPA process which was subsequently entered into:
The court was satisfied that the DPA applied for was in the interests of justice, and that its terms were fair, reasonable and proportionate, leading to the second-largest corporate criminal settlement reached in the
Takeaways
This result demonstrates that
It also is expected that DPAs will no longer be regarded as being in the exclusive domain of the SFO (which has secured 11 DPAs to date), and that they will be increasingly utilised once the new failure to prevent fraud offence is introduced (examined in this
Companies under investigation by
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Ms Monica Mylordou
1114 Avenue Of The Americas
10036-7798
E-mail: zthoughtleadership@cooley.com
URL: www.cooley.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source