Sec Proffer Agreement
The Wyly case is not the only case where we have obtained authorizations while litigation is ongoing.  I consider this use of confessions to complement the department`s cooperation program – even without a cooperation agreement, this approach offers the possibility of blocking a witness` version of events before the trial in order to ensure predictable testimony. 1. Unless otherwise specified in paragraphs 2 and 3, no statement or other information provided by you or your customer during the sale is used against your customer. So far, I have written extensively on `cooperation agreements`, without pointing out that the Commission also uses, in appropriate circumstances, non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and prosection agreements (DPA) with individuals.  The differences and uses of NPPs and DPAs deserve a separate blog post, but for now, suffice it to say: I hope this has given you a better idea of what the Department thinks about cooperation agreements and other cooperation instruments, and the huge progress we have made in using these tools over the past five years. I also hope to have shown that cooperation in our investigations has tangible benefits for individuals and organizations. Given the prospect of a possible implementing measure, I hope that individuals are considering serious cooperation that has considerable benefits and can be a viable way to avoid a terrible outcome. I look forward to the 10th anniversary of the program, if I hope we will have further progress to make.
I believe that people without criminal detection should not make proposals. It is important to understand that the number of people (of government interest) who fall into the «no exposure» category in a typical economic study is very small or infinitely small. (An eyewitness to a bank robbery has no exposure. An eyewitness to a bank fraud system is often an employee who has supported, favored or concealed the system. All a jury needs to convict you of complicity in an illegal fraud scheme is: 1) your knowledge of the illegal scheme; and 2) any action on your part, regardless of size, that has fostered this pattern. In order not to be prosecuted in economic criminal proceedings, your behaviour must correspond to that of the classic innocent spectator during a bank robbery. However, if you and your seasoned business lawyer are sure that you are completely exposure-free and the government wants to interview you, you must first decide if you are responding to the request. If you refuse an interview, AUSA can either ignore you or summon you to testify before the grand jury or in court. If you are summoned, you can answer questions under oath from an enemy prosecutor or refuse to testify, unless immunity is granted. If you really don`t have exposure, you theoretically don`t have the right to ask for immunity. But how can you be sure that you don`t have exposure in an economic survey? What happens if other witnesses, subjects or targets who have not yet testified involve you or contradict your version of events? If you invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution against self-charging, it is from a practical point of view extremely difficult for the government to force you to testify without granting you immunity. .