British law enforcement has long used cooperating witnesses as tools in their arsenal of weapons. “Supergrass” evidence was widely used in the 1980s to tackle problems in Northern Ireland, and more recently in response to organised and violent crime in the 2000s. The system was first regulated by the common law and then by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). Under SECTION 71 of SOCPA, an offender may be offered immunity from prosecution. Section 73 provides that an accused who has pleaded guilty to a criminal offence and who assists the investigator or prosecutor with respect to that or other offence may take this assistance into account in determining his or her sentence. The purpose of this legislative framework was to clarify and strengthen the existing framework for the common law, which continues to operate in parallel. The only fundamental difference from an offender`s perspective is that, unlike section 74 SOCPA, which allows the court to change a sentence (up or down) after it is pronounced, there is no mechanism for a common law agreement. However, between January 2006 and April 2014, the SFO entered into only a SOCPA s.71 agreement, while the number of SFO agreements concluded during the same period was only 11.9, such a reform would facilitate the prosecution of companies for crimes such as fraud and avoid potential embarrassment if persons accused of misconduct were ultimately acquitted. An economic crime would not go as far as the U.S. approach to corporate liability, in which a company is responsible for the criminal activities of one of its employees against company policy.
However, the introduction of a broader “prevention failure” of crime could be seen as a step towards a position closer to the broader range of corporate responsibility in the United States. Since 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has set guidelines for the continuation of professional associations and businesses.  The U.S. Manual of America (USAM) of the DOJ allows for the review of non-prosecution or deferred prosecution of offences committed by companies due to collateral consequences and discusses oral arguments, deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements in general.   According to U.S. criminal guidelines, prosecutions postponed in the past are not imputed to the criminal history of an accused if there is no conviction by a court and the accused is not guilty or is otherwise guilty. This contrasts with a deferred provision that generally involves such a finding or authorization.  After a CCA, the government will charge an accused, but agrees not to proceed with these charges. In return, the defendant agrees to meet certain requirements or conditions. If the accused completes his final agreement, the government agrees to drop the costs. But if the accused refutes and violates the terms of the CCA, the government can proceed with the prosecution.
Perhaps because of the Arthur Andersen case – and the many innocent employees who found themselves in need as a result of these lawsuits – the resolution of a case by a data protection authority has become more frequent in recent years. According to a study, the Department of Justice has concluded more than 150 such agreements with defendants between 2015 and 2017. If negotiations continue, the company agrees to a number of conditions, such as paying .B a fine, paying compensation and cooperating with the prosecution of individuals. If the company does not meet the conditions, the charge may be reinstated. The modalities for monitoring compliance are set out in the provisions of the data protection authority.