CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER
Uhlmann
Says It Is Wrong to Defer Prosecution of Corporate Crime
22 Corporate Crime Reporter 23, June 5, 2008
It’s wrong to use deferred prosecution agreements to settle corporate
crime cases.
That’s the take of David Uhlmann.
For seven years, Uhlmann was head of the Environmental Crimes Section at the Justice Department.
He’s now a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.
“I do not believe that deferred prosecutions are the proper way to sanction corporate criminal conduct,” Uhlmann told Corporate Crime Reporter earlier this week. “My view is that, if a corporation commits a crime, as when an individual commits a crime, it should be held criminally responsible. It should not be the case that a corporation can pony up large sums of money, agree to cooperate with an investigation, and thereby avoid criminal prosecution.”
“There were senior officials in the Department during my tenure who had a different opinion. As a result, there were a few isolated cases, which did not involve my office, where U.S. Attorneys pursued deferred prosecution agreements even in environmental cases. I disagreed with that approach. But it was always a professional disagreement. Fortunately, the instances where deferred prosecutions were used in environmental cases were rare.”
Uhlmann said that in seven years as head of the Environmental Crimes Section, his office entered into a deferred prosecution agreement only once.
That was the FirstEnergy case, which involved the Davis Bessie nuclear power facility in Ohio.
“For a whole host of reasons, the United States Attorney's Office and our office agreed that it was appropriate to enter a deferred prosecution agreement,” Uhlmann said. “It was a case brought under the false statement provisions of the U.S. Code. The case largely involved issues of compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. It was not a heartland environmental crimes case. It was not a case that we felt had broader policy implications for the environmental crimes program. So we agreed in that one case to a deferred prosecution agreement. And I think it was a fair and just result in that particular case.”
Of the six past chiefs of the Environment Crimes Section, five have gone into private practice after leaving the Department.
Judson Starr (1987 to 1989) and Joseph G. (Jerry) Block (1989 to 1991) are at Venable in Washington, D.C.
Neil S. Cartusciello (1991 to 1994) is in private practice.
Ronald A. Sarachan (1994 to 1997) is at Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia.
And Steven P. Solow (1997 to 2000) is at Hunton & Williams in Washington, D.C.
The current head of the Environmental Crimes Section is Stacey Mitchell, a former Uhlmann deputy.
Uhlmann (2000 to 2007) decided to go into academia.
Why?
“I considered following my predecessors and joining a law firm,” Uhlmann said. “I have a tremendous amount of respect for the work done by law firms. I just felt that I could make a more significant impact at the University of Michigan. Without denigrating in any way the choices others have made, I didn't feel like I could go from seventeen years prosecuting environmental crimes to defending companies and individuals accused of environmental crimes. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but it wasn't the choice that made sense for me.”
[For a complete transcript of the Interview with David Uhlmann, see 22 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(10), June 9, 2008, print edition only .]
Corporate
Crime Reporter
1209 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045
202.737.1680