JANUARY 14 — In the United Kingdom (UK), a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) is an agreement reached between the prosecution and an organisation being prosecuted, under the supervision of a judge.

The DPA allows the prosecution to be suspended for a defined period, provided the organisation meets certain specified conditions.

DPAs can be used for fraud, bribery and other economic crimes. They apply to organisations, never individuals.

The key features of DPAs in the UK are explained to the public in the following terms:

• They enable a corporate body to make full reparation for criminal behaviour without the collateral damage of a conviction.
• They are concluded under the supervision of a judge, who must be convinced that the DPA is “in the interests of justice” and that the terms are “fair, reasonable and proportionate”.
• They avoid lengthy and costly trials.
• They are transparent and made public.

Introduced on February 24, 2014 under the provisions of Schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, DPAs have contributed towards rule of law in the UK.

An example of a DPA is the one entered between the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Airbus on March 2, 2023. The DPA is made public and can be read here.

So, why the alarm over the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)’s proposal for a DPA in Malaysia, as announced by the MACC chief?

If properly legislated, DPA can be better than to discontinue or not to conduct a prosecution pursuant to the exercise of the powers under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution — arguably.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.