Eric holder, the former attorney general, wrote a memo outlining the concepts around the time of the 2008 financial crisis iirc. The idea behind a deferred prosecution agreement is that extracting money and good behavior out of powerful/wealthy defendants is the best possible option when compared to the "collateral consequences" of fully prosecuting them.

A great example of class-justice by design.

Right. Let’s see how bad the “collateral consequences” actually are. Though, the result of inept or malfeasant prosecution could be the equivalent of formal immunity thereafter. I’d still like to take my chances.

For reference: June 16th, 1999 - https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/l...

Is this what GP is talking about? It's about charging corporations.

Unfortunately it is - the collateral consequences discussed is oriented towards companies labeled too big to fail, but is used to make it easier on prosecuters to attain a form of conviction on less economically impactful prosecutions as well.

The German legal system knows a similar concept in § 153a StPO. Basically, if a crime isn't considered particularly severe, and both the prosecutor, the accused, and in some cases the judge agree, the criminal charges are dropped in exchange for "stipulations" (typically restitution, paying a certain amount of money to the state or a nonprofit, working community service, anger management courses, ...) - which means you're never found guilty, making it a great deal in most cases.

The idea is that less severe crimes can be handled without the full overhead and without excessive punishment. In practice, this can be 'a bit' controversial, e.g. when Bernie Ecclestone resolved his corruption charges this way by paying 100 million EUR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone#Bribery_accu...

Criminal charges can end in fines and no jail time. Prosecutors can negotiate plea deals (including fines) to avoid going to court.

I don't know enough to comment on if this is something that happens often (it certainly doesn't feel appropriate) in cases like this.

Paying a fine isn't a real punishment?

It's not a fine. That's the problem.

Sure, it's a "financial penalty", technically. Plea deals are common in many jurisdictions, and the settlement imposes additional penalties. They're being punished.

You are right that a fine is a real penalty but that’s not the real problem. The problem is that someone who committed the same crime but has less money wouldn’t qualify for this option.

Is that true? I'm not a lawyer, but I know that in certain criminal plea agreements, such as in antitrust cases, the financial penalty can be paid over installments, the size of which is tied to the company's financial performance. See e.g.

> If the parties agree that the recommended fine needs to be paid in installments because of the defendant's inability to pay the entire amount immediately, the plea agreement will include the installment schedule and any interest terms.(58) The payment of a special assessment(59) and any recommendation on a term of probation(60) or expedited sentencing(61) for corporations, or requests by individual defendants to be placed in a specific correctional facility,(62) will also be addressed in the plea agreement.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/us-model-negotiated-plea-...

And to get back to the original comment I replied to, this critique seems like it would apply to any financial punishment, not something that came down to a technical distinction between "fine" and "financial penalty".

Someone with no/low income will take eons to repay $1.685.000, even if made in installments. I doubt it would even be a serious option unless you were wealthy.