Before laying or recommending charges as part of a preload plea agreement, counsel for the government should consult the provisions of JM 9-27.430`s oral arguments relating to the selection of charges to which an accused should be required to plead guilty. Efforts by the Quebec engineering office SNC-Lavalin to solve the fraud and corruption charges against the company by a dpa ended with an admission of guilt from the company`s construction arm and led to a political scandal that reached the Prime Minister`s office. SNC-Lavalin was accused of paying some C$47.7 million between 2001 and 2011 (approximately US$36.4 million through current conversion rates) to Libyan officials. [359] Had it been convicted, the company could have faced a 10-year ban on obtaining federal government contracts under Canada`s “integrity regime.” [360] In October 2018, after the Federal Director of The Crown decided that the case was not fit for a CCA, the market value of the business fell by about C$2.2 billion (approximately $1.7 billion). [361] Two Chinese units of Massachusetts-based software company PTC Inc. entered into a non-prosecution agreement and on Tuesday paid a $14.5 million fine to clear up a DOJ investigation into payments made by Chinese government agents for recreational travel in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act…. Read more The concession requested by the government in the context of a plea, whether it is a “pricing agreement”, a “criminal agreement” or a “mixed agreement”, should be balanced by the competent prosecutor in light of the likely advantages and disadvantages of the fundamental agreement proposed in the concrete case. Particular attention must be paid to considering the possibility of entering into an appeal agreement under which the defendant may establish a ground for Nolo`s application. As was discussed in the years JM 9-27.500 and JM 9-16.000, there are serious objections to these grounds and they should be rejected unless the competent Assistant Attorney General concludes that the circumstances are so unusual that the assumption of such a plea would be in the public interest. At the end of July 2019, the CGU and the AGU announced that the mechanical engineering group Camargo Corréa S.A. (“Camargo”) had agreed to pay R$1.396 billion (approximately $344 million) by January 2038 to pay for allegations that the company had entered into fraudulent construction contracts with public funds and was therefore improperly enriched.

[377] The transaction amounted to 905.9 million reais (approximately 223 million reais). USD) resulting from the alleged fraud of 330.3 million reais (approximately $81.4 million) worth of alleged bribes, an administrative fine of 36.2 million reais (approximately $9 million) and a civil penalty of REais 123.6 million (approximately $30.5 million) under Brazilian administrative law. [378] The agreement also requires Camargo to improve its compliance program, with a focus on preventing bad practices and prioritizing ethics and transparency in the business. [379] In concluding a non-prosecution agreement, counsel for the government should, as far as possible, expressly limit the scope of the government`s commitment to: [214] U.S.