Pelaksanaan Pelaporan Kendiri Dalam Perjanjian Penangguhan Pendakwaan Di Amerika Syarikat Dan United Kingdom
Abstract
Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) have emerged as a crucial tool for resolving corporate criminal investigations in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). One key aspect of DPAs is the requirement for companies to self-report potential wrongdoing to law enforcement authorities. Self-reporting promotes transparency and accountability by requiring the disclosure of corporate misconduct, reflecting a proactive commitment to addressing and preventing recidivism. This approach cultivates an ethical corporate environment and reinforces a culture of compliance. This study employs a qualitative methodology and a doctrinal legal approach to examine the differences and similarities in self-reporting requirements within DPAs in the US and UK and to explore the nuances and implications of self-reporting within corporate entities. An examination of legal frameworks and relevant case studies in the US and UK reveals evolving enforcement practices that underscore best practices for corporate accountability. These insights provide valuable guidance for Malaysia in its consideration of implementing Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) within its legal framework. The study's findings elucidate the complexities and critical role of voluntary self-reporting in advancing corporate transparency and driving systemic reform, ultimately enhancing enforcement effectiveness and deterring corporate misconduct. This paper further proposes improvements to the self-reporting process to ensure fair and equitable outcomes for all stakeholders and presents recommendations for the Malaysian government to consider in implementing DPAs.
ABSTRAK
Perjanjian Penangguhan Pendakwaan (PPP) merupakan instrumen penting dalam penyiasatan jenayah korporat di Amerika Syarikat (AS) dan United Kingdom (UK). Antara aspek utama PPP ialah keperluan untuk syarikat melaksanakan pelaporan kendiri berhubung dengan potensi salah laku yang berlaku dalam syarikat kepada pihak berkuasa yang berkaitan. Pelaporan kendiri dalam PPP bertujuan menggalakkan ketelusan dan akauntabiliti dalam kalangan syarikat dengan melaporkan sebarang salah laku korporat yang berlaku. Hal ini menzahirkan komitmen proaktif oleh sesebuah syarikat untuk menangani salah laku yang telah berlaku dan mencegah pengulangannya di masa hapadan, sekaligus mewujudkan persekitaran korporat yang beretika. Dalam membincangkan hal ini, kajian ini menggunakan metodologi kualitatif dan pendekatan doktrin undang-undang untuk mengenal pasti perbezaan dan persamaan tentang keperluan pelaporan kendiri dalam PPP di AS dan UK serta meneroka nuansa dan implikasi pelaporan kendiri dalam entiti korporat. Melalui kajian tentang rangka kerja undang-undang di AS dan UK, adalah didapati amalan penguatkuasaan yang berkembang di kedua-dua negara itu termasuk kajian kes undang-undang yang berkaitan sesuai dijadikan rujukan oleh Malaysia dalam pelaksanaan PPP. Hasil kajian ini dapat memberi pemahaman yang jelas tentang cabaran dan kepentingan pelaksanaan pelaporan kendiri secara sukarela dalam sesebuah organisasi ke arah menggalakkan ketelusan dan pembaharuan dalam syarikat atau badan korporat, yang akhirnya membawa kepada penguatkuasaan yang lebih berkesan bagi mencegah salah laku dalam sesebuah syarikat. Makalah ini juga seterusnya mengemukakan cadangan penambahbaikan proses pelaporan kendiri bagi memastikan hasil yang adil dan saksama untuk semua pihak berkepentingan yang terlibat termasuk cadangan yang boleh dipertimbangkan oleh kerajaan Malaysia bagi maksud pelaksanaan PPP di Malaysia.
Kata kunci: Perjanjian Penangguhan Pendakwaan, PPP, pelaporan kendiri, Amerika Syarikat, United Kingdom, korporat.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ardi Ferdian. (2021). Konsep Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) dalam pertanggung-jawaban pidana korporasi sebagai bentuk alternatif penyelesaian sengketa. Arena Hukum, 14(3), 534 – 535.
Arlen, J. (2019). The potential promise and perils of introducing deferred prosecution agreements outside the U.S. (July 29, 2019). NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 19-30, NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 19-29, 2.
Bernasconi, A. (2019). Deferred prosecution agreements as magic enforcement tool? (Why) should other countries follow the USA (1990). Brazil (2013), Great Britain (2014), France (2016) and Singapore (2018) and introduce DPAs as instrument to settle criminal charges against corporates? University of Geneva, 2019.
Bisgrove, M, & Weekes, M. (2014). Deferred prosecution agreements: A practical consideration. Criminal Law Review, 6, 416-438.
Bisgrove, M., & Weekes, M. (2014). Crim. L.R., Issue 6.
Campbell, L. (2021). Revisiting and re-situating deferred prosecution agreements in Australia: Lessons from England and Wales. Sydney Law Review, 43(2), 187.
Chee Keong Low, & Tak Yip Low. (2020). Corporate criminal liability and Section 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 32, 563.
Chua, E., & Chan, Benedict Wei Qi (2019). Deferred prosecution agreements in Singapore: What is the appropriate standard for judicial approval? International Commentary on Evidence, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1515/ice-2019-0002
Criminal Justice (Deferred Prosecution Agreements) (Jersey) Law 2023.
Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam (2021). A timely consideration for deferred prosecution agreements – Rajan Navaratnam. theVibes.com. ps://www.thevibes.com/articles/opinion/46455/a-timely-consideration-for-deferred-prosecution-agreements-rajan-navaratnam
Davis, F. (2022). Judicial review of deferred prosecution agreements: A comparative study. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 60, 751.
Delaney, R. (2009). Congressional legislation: The next step for corporate deferred prosecution agreements. Symposium: Criminal Appeals: Past, Present, and Future, Marquette Law Review, 93(2), 875-904.
Department of Justice. (1999, June 16). Bringing criminal charges against corporations. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2010/04/11/charging-corps.PDF
Department of Justice. (2024, April 22). Criminal Division’s Voluntary Self-Disclosures Pilot Program for Individuals. https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/criminal-divisions-voluntary-self-disclosures-pilot-program-individuals
Department of Justice. (2024, Mac). Enforcement policy for business organizations. https://www.justice.gov/nsd/media/1285121/dl?inline
Department of Justice. 9-28.000 - Principles of Federal Prosecution Of Business Organizations. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-28000-principles-federal-prosecution-business-organizations#9-28.900
Dunn, G. (2020). The UK Serious Fraud Office 2020 Deferred Prosecution Agreement Guidance: Something old and something new. https://www.gibsondunn.com/the-uk-serious-fraud-office-2020-deferred-prosecution-agreement-guidance-something-old-and-something-new/
Evangelista, A., Good, A., Rawcliffe, B. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP. (2023, Februari 23). DOJ doubles down on efforts to incentivize early self-reporting and cooperation. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/02/23/doj-doubles-down-on-efforts-to-incentivize-early-self-reporting-and-cooperation/
Ford, C., & Hess, D. (2019). Can corporate monitorships improve corporate compliance? Journal of Corporation Law, 34, 2-60.
Grindler, G. (2010). Grindler Memorandum for the Heads of Departments. United States Attorney, Department of Justice.
Hertstein, B., Berry, M., & Brown, S. C. (2024). Deferred prosecution agreements in Jersey: Ways to buttress the castle. A comparative analysis of regimes for deferred prosecution agreements in Jersey and England and Wales. Journal of Economic Criminology, 3, 100046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2023.100046
Justice Manual, Title 9: Criminal, 9-28.900 - Voluntary Self-Disclosures, DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations dan 9-47.120 - FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP).
King, C, & Lord, N. (2018). Negotiated justice and corporate crime: The legitimacy of civil recovery orders and deferred prosecution agreements. Palgrave Macmillan.
King, C., & Lord, N. (2020). Deferred Prosecution Agreements in England & Wales: Castles made of sand? Public Law, 307-330.
Lord, N. (2023). Prosecution deferred, prosecution exempt: On the interests of (in) justice in the non-trial resolution of transnational corporate bribery. The British Journal of Criminology, 63, 848–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac059
Masaki Iwasaki (2020). A model of corporate self-policing and self-reporting. International Review of Law and Economics, 63, 105910.
Memorandum on “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies. (2015). https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-04/USAO_Voluntary_Self-Disclosure_Policy.pdf
Ministry of Justice (2012). Deferred prosecution agreements, government response to the consultation on a new enforcement tool to deal with economic crime committed by commercial organisations.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b9381ed915d4147621466/8463.pdf
Morford, C. S. (2008). Morford Memorandum for the Heads of Departments. United States Attorney, Department of Justice.
Noor Afiqah Ismail, Mohd Zamre Mohd Zahir, & Hasani Mohd Ali. (2023). Deferred prosecution agreement: A new path to combat corruption in Malaysia. International Journal of Law, Government and Communication (IJLGC), 8. https://doi.org/10.35631/IJLGC.83100931
Norhanan Che Kamaruddin, Mohd Zamre Mohd Zahir, & Hasani Mohd Ali. (2023). Circumstantial evidence to prove the elements of insider trading in Malaysia and Australia. JUUM, 33, 49-59.
NPA antara Division of Enforcement of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission dan Ralph Lauren Corporation, ditandatangani pada 18 April 2013.
NPA antara National Security Division dan SAP SE.
Nur Hazirah Ahamad Kuris, Mohd Zamre Mohd Zahir, Hasani Mohd Ali, & Muhamad Sayuti Hassan. (2023). The thin line between corporate gift, hospitality and corruption: A legal study on Malaysia’s and the UK’s position. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 26(4), 719-738. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-03-2022-0040
Office of Public Affairs, Department of Justice (2023). Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco announces new safe harbor policy for voluntary self-disclosures made in connection with mergers and acquisitions. https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-o-monaco-announces-new-safe-harbor-policy-vol
Oranga, J., & Matere, A. (2023). Qualitative research: Essence, types and advantages. Open Access Library Journal, 10(12), 6-7. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1111001
Parker, M. J., & Dodge, M. (2022). An exploratory study of deferred prosecution agreements and the adjudication of corporate crime. Journal of Financial Crime. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Paulsen, E. (2007). Imposing limits on prosecutorial discretion in corporate prosecution agreements. New York University Law Review, 82, 1437.
Penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Crown Prosecution Services dan Entain Plc. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U20231779, 5 Disember 2023 (Tarikh pendengaran: 5 Disember 2023 di hadapan Presiden Queen’s Bench Division, Rt. Hon. Dame Victoria Sharp).
Penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Airline Services Limited dan Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Airbus SE.
Penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Rolls-Royce Plc. & Rolls-Royce Energy Systems Inc.
Perez, M. A. (2020). The rise and globalization of negotiated settlements: How an American procedure, the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), became a transnational key tool to fight transnational corporate crimes. Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Journal, 1. https://doi.org/10.5339/rolacc.2020.4
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Standard Bank Plc. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U20150854, 30 November 2015 (Tarikh pendengaran: 4 November 2015 di hadapan Presiden Queen’s Bench Division, Rt. Hon. Sir Brian Leveson).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Sarclad Limited. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U20150854, 11 Julai 2016 (Tarikh pendengaran: 8 Julai 2016 di hadapan Presiden Queen’s Bench Division, Rt. Hon. Sir Brian Leveson).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Rolls-Royce Plc, Rolls-Royce Energy System Inc. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U20170036, 17 Januari 2017 (Tarikh pendengaran: 17 Januari 2017 di hadapan Presiden Queen’s Bench Division, Rt. Hon. Sir Brian Leveson).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Tesco Plc. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U20170280, 10 April 2017 (Tarikh pendengaran: 17 Januari 2017 di hadapan Presiden Queen’s Bench Division, Rt. Hon. Sir Brian Leveson).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Serco Geografix Limited. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U20190413, 4 Julai 2019 (Tarikh pendengaran: 27 Jun & 4 Julai 2019 di hadapan Mr. Justice William Davis).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Guralp System Limited. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U20190840, 22 Oktober 2019 (Tarikh pendengaran: 10 & 22 Oktober 2019 di hadapan Mr. Justice William Davis).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Airbus SE. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U20200108, 31 Januari 2020 (Tarikh pendengaran: 31 Januari 2020 di hadapan Presiden Queen’s Bench Division, Rt. Hon. Dame Victoria Sharp).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan G4S Care & Justice Services (UK) Limited. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U2021392, 17 Julai 2020 (Tarikh pendengaran: 10 & 17 Julai 2020 di hadapan Mr. Justice William Davis).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Airline Services Limited. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U202019, 30 Okrober 2020 (Tarikh pendengaran: 21 & 30 Oktober 2020 di hadapan Mrs. Justice May DB).
Pernyataan fakta dan penghakiman diluluskan bagi PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited. The Crown Court At Southwark mengenai perkara seksyen 45 Crime And Courts Act 2013, Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No Kes: U2021392, 1 Julai 2021 (Tarikh pendengaran: 25 Jun & 1 Julai 2021 di hadapan Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Edis).
Pernyataan fakta dan PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan BLUU Solutions Limited, 9 Julai 2021.
Pernyataan fakta dan PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Tetris Project Limited, 9 Julai 2021.
Plea Agreements—Considerations to be Weighed, Justice Manual, Title 9: Criminal, 9-27.000 Principles of Federal Prosecution.
PPP antara Securities and Division of Enforcement ("Division") of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission dan Tenaris, S.A. Mac 2011.
PPP antara Serious Fraud Office dan Rolls-Royce Plc & Rolls-Royce Energy System Inc, Royal Court of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL, No. Kes: U20170036, 17 Januari 2017.
PPP antara United States Amerika dan Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, di the United States District Court For The Eastern District of Virginia, 2019.
PPP antara United States of America dan ABB. Ltd., dalam The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. No. Kes: I :22-CR-220, 2 Disember 2022.
PPP antara United States of America dan American Online, Inc. The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia, Alexandria Division, No. Kes :04 M 1133, 14 Disember 2004.
PPP antara United States of America dan Ayla Holdings S.A.R.L. No. Kes: 23-CR-463 pada 21 Disember 2023.
PPP antara United States of America dan Credit Suisse Group AG, dalam The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. Kes: 21-521 (WFK), 19 Oktober 2021.
PPP antara United States of America dan Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. No. Kes: 1:20-cr-00443 – RNC pada 1 September 2020.
PPP antara United States of America dan JP Morgan & Co. The United States District Court, District of Connecticut, No. Kes: 3:20-cr-00175 - RNC, 22 September 2020.
PPP antara United States of America dan JPMorgan Chase & Co., United States District Court District of Connecticut, Criminal No. 3:20-cr-00175 – RNC.
PPP antara United States of America dan Rolls-Royce Plc. The United States District Court For The Southern District Of Ohio, Eastern Division, No. Kes: 2: 16 CR-247, 20 Disember 2016.
PPP antara United States of America dan Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, No. Kes: 1:19-CR-328, 22 November 2019.
PPP antara United States of America dan SAP SE, dalam The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, No. Kes: I :23-CR-202, 10 Januari 2024.
PPP antara United States of America dan The Boeing Company. No. Kes: 4:21-CR-005-O pada 7 Januari 2021.
Qingxiu Bu. (2021). The viability of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) in the UK: The impact on global anti bribery compliance. European Business Organization Law Review, 22, 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021-00203-5
Raad, A., Seelinger, S., Feeney, J. O., & Wykowska, Z. (2022). Global investigation review, self-reporting to the authorities and other disclosure obligations: The US perspective. https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-practitioners-guide-global-investigations/2022/article/self-reporting-the-authorities-and-other-disclosure-obligations-the-us-perspective
Reilly, P. (2018). Sweetheart deals, deferred prosecution, and making a mockery of the Criminal Justice System: U.S. Corporate DPAs rejected on many fronts. Arizona State Law Journal 1113, 1115-1116.
Reilly, P. R. (2015). Incentivizing corporate America to eradicate transnational bribery worldwide: Federal transparency and voluntary disclosure under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Florida Law Review, 67(5), 1683-1733.
Rosairo, H. S. R. (2023). Thematic analysis in qualitative research.
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 18(3).
Securities Exchange Commission (2024). Benefits of cooperation with the division of enforcement. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement/enforcement-cooperation-program.
Seddon, J., & Ivanos, A. (2024). Self-reporting to the authorities and other disclosure obligations: The UK perspective. Dechert LLP,.https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-practitioners-guide-global-investigations/2024/article/self-reporting-the-authorities-and-other-disclosure-obligations-the-uk-perspective
Serious Fraud Office (2020). Deferred Prosecution Agreements. ps://www.sfo.gov.uk/publications/guidance-policy-and-protocols/guidance-for-corporates/deferred-prosecution-agreements-2/
Serious Fraud Office, Corporate Self-Reporting. (2012). https://www.sfo.gov.uk/publications/guidance-policy-and-protocols/guidance-for-corporates/corporate-self-reporting/
Serious Fraud Office, Deferred Prosecution Code of Practice, Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Slaughter & May (2020). Deferred prosecution agreements implication for corporates of their global spread. Slaughter and May Horizon Scanning series. https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/
Sprenger, P. (2015). Deferred prosecution agreements: The law and practice of negotiated corporate criminal penalties, law in practice. Sweet & Maxwell.
Syed Muhammad Sajjad Kabir. (2016). Methods of data collection. Dlm Syed Muhammad Sajjad Kabir, Basic guidelines for research: An introductory approach for all disciplines (hlm. 201-275). Book Zone Publication.
The Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Second Edition, 2020.
United States Sentencing Commision, Chapter Eight - Sentencing Of Organizations, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 2018, https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2018-guidelines-manual/2018-chapter-8 (diakses pada 11 Jun 2024).
Usharani Balasingam, & Vani Rukumani. (2020). Section 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act 2009: Corporate liability and beyond. 4 MLJ cxlii.
Weissmann, A., & Newman, D. (2007). Rethinking criminal corporate liability. Indiana Law Journal, 82(2), 411-451.
Werle, N. (2019). Prosecuting corporate crime when firms are too big to jail: Investigation, deterrence, and judicial review. The Yale Law Journal, 128, 1366-1438.
Xiao, M. Y. (2013). Deferred/Non Prosecution Agreements: Effective tools to combat corporate crime. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 23(1), Article 7.
Yan Zhang, & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. Dlm B. M. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science (hlm. 1-12). Libraries Unlimited.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.