Airbus Deferred Prosecution Agreement

April 8th, 2021

As with all data protection authorities, the Court of Justice had to conclude, in the course of its duties, that the SFO`s agreement with Airbus was fair, appropriate and proportionate in the interests of justice. The Court considered the first part of this trial in its decision to authorize the data protection authority. In short, a DPA is an agreement between an agency and a prosecutor, with the prosecutor agreeing to suspend all prosecutions (for a fixed period), provided the company complies with the terms of the data control authority. This often includes the payment of a fine, compensation and/or cost, as well as the ongoing remediation of the compliance program and culture, sometimes under the supervision of a monitor. In considering whether to offer a CCA to a company, law enforcement agencies take into account a variety of factors, including the extent to which the company self-reports wrongdoing, collaborates with the agency (including the identification and expulsion of offending directors and employees) and implements a comprehensive recovery program. In his judgment, Mr. Sharp found that Airbus SE could have acted more quickly by raising concerns with the SFO. It noted, however, that following the creation of the SFO, Airbus SE cooperated fully with the investigation and that its new management had implemented a reform and compliance programme. Particular attention has been paid to the cooperation of Airbus SE by Dame Sharp to take into account the public interest factors against prosecution: “…

The public interest factors against prosecution clearly outweigh those who support prosecution… Airbus has… really his pockets and is now a changed business.┬áThe investigation and monitoring of the corruption of a foreign official is governed by the applicable rules and principles of each party. They should not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, by potential consequences on relations with another state or on the identity of the individuals or legal entities concerned. In particular, in the recent past, the SFO has failed to prosecute individuals because of their role in the fault of an organization (for example. B, the SFO`s investigation against Guralp led to the prosecution of three staff members, all of them cleared; the investigation into individual involvement in Rolls Royce`s fault has been closed and the SFO has recently failed to prosecute high-level Barclays executives). It remains to be seen whether current or former Airbus employees in the UK will expect to be charged for the breaches that have been the subject of the data protection authority, but a failure to properly investigate will undoubtedly strengthen the control of the SFO.

Touch for Menu

Back To Top