In addition, Argentina recently introduced a DPA regime and Canada announced on February 22, 2018 that following a public consultation on data protection authorities, held between September and December 2017, it will pass legislation on deferred justice agreements that should be implemented through judicial redress orders. The SEC`s reasons for the CCA reflect policy objectives similar to those set out by the DOJ, with a strong emphasis on deterring continued conduct and protecting the interests of corporate shareholders and market integrity. Among the specific requirements of the data protection authority is an agreement: the reasons given by the government for concluding such agreements are both economic and the belief that this is a good policy. The DJD policy outlines the objectives of the DPA and AFN in preventing the future criminal activities of certain offenders, saving judicial resources for major cases, and “the tool of reparation for communities and victims of crime.” Practical application is used when there is sufficient evidence for prosecution, but combined self-openness, cooperation and concern to punish those who have not been involved (i.e. associates), a DPA or an NPA and do not deserve conviction. USA: Although originally used with individuals, DPAs and NPAs are now increasingly used in cases that involve corporate organizations in a wide range of alleged federal crimes. Instead of articulating the list of offences for which Dpa can be used, the DOJ defines behaviour that is not eligible for a CCA. The DOJ`s policy prohibits the use of data protection authorities in national security, foreign policy, against a person with two or more convictions for crimes, in a case that would be referred by DOJ policy to a prosecutor`s office or to a case claiming that an official has violated public trust (USAM ss9-22.100). United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has delayed data protection authorities. They were finally introduced into English law by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and the data protection authorities` provisions came into force on 24 February 2014. It will probably be some time before the first DPA is made public. However, there is a precedent in Scotland where the Crown Office, which is responsible for prosecuting bribery and previous laws, has reached an agreement with an insulting company.
In 2012, an oil and gas activity itself reported corrupt payments made by a foreign subsidiary in 2007 (i.e., payments were made before the Corruption Act came into force in 2010, but under the previous anti-corruption legislation). The insulting company was not prosecuted, but agreed to pay US$5.6 million to the Crown. It is questionable whether the Crown would have actually found sufficient grounds to pursue this conduct under the old Act, given that the offence of “corruption” was committed only by the Corruption Act and has no retroactive effect, and that the conduct in question took place a few years earlier. In the American model, most of the trial between the alleged accused and the prosecutors takes place outside the court. Although the final agreement requires the approval of the judge, the judges have little leeway to refuse such authorization.