As I detailed, with evidence, a DPA is not “dropping” charges. It’s an alternative to prosecution of a corporation. A corporation made up of many innocent workers who do not deserve to be tarnished with a guilty conviction. DPA’s are used around the globe, and in the US.
A DPA focusses on amending the conditions that facilitated the commission of crimes by bad actors within the corporation.
The crimes and those who commit them are prosecuted separately. And in this case, they have been. With one exception I’ll address later.
The crimes and those who commit them are prosecuted separately. And in this case, they have been. With one exception I’ll address later.
Being that a corporation is a collection of people, not a “person” itself, it doesn’t make much sense to punish the people who did not commit crimes by removing their pension and possibly their employment.
A better alternative is to procure the cooperation of the corporation’s leadership in aiding the prosecution of the crimes that were committed and addressing any deficiencies in policy and practice that may have tacitly contributed to the crimes committed.
That way, the innocent are protected, their livelihoods preserved, along with their pensions, and the corporation can continue in its business. It’s a win-win for the corporation and the rule of law and order.
You should know this since the US has been doing this for 20 years.
You should know this since the US has been doing this for 20 years.
The perpetrators of the crimes are dealt with separately through criminal prosecution. And SNC criminal individuals have been prosecuted.
Again, the corporation didn’t commit a crime, the accused and convicted individuals who happened to be part of the corporation did.
Again, the corporation didn’t commit a crime, the accused and convicted individuals who happened to be part of the corporation did.
A corporation is a group of people, conveniently referred to as one entity, but comprised of many individuals. Prosecuting a corporation is the prosecution of innocent individuals. An unfair and counterproductive use of prosecutorial resources, best reserved for actual criminals.
As for your allegation that the PM pressed for a certain outcome. That is cherry picked information in a very questionable report.
That report is much like USAG Barr’s whitewashed Mueller Report summary, obfuscating facts and drawing conclusions unsupported by the evidence.
That report is much like USAG Barr’s whitewashed Mueller Report summary, obfuscating facts and drawing conclusions unsupported by the evidence.
Hardly the documentation to be touting as evidence of a crime.
In Canada, the report has been widely criticized by multi-partisan legal opinions representing several years of legal expertise, just like Barr’s version of the Mueller Report. Another fact you conveniently ignore.
In Canada, the report has been widely criticized by multi-partisan legal opinions representing several years of legal expertise, just like Barr’s version of the Mueller Report. Another fact you conveniently ignore.
The Canadian Federal Ethics Commissioner also detailed the hesitancy of the former AG to support the legislation, her refusal to defend it in committee during policy review, her immediate denial of the option of the newly created DPA, and refusal to obtain a second opinion. 
While the pressure to find a solution is accurate, it was always the AG’s decision to make, as she testified before the HOC Justice committee. She clearly communicated NO CRIME had been committed, rather, she felt unduly pressured to get a second legal opinion.
Another factor you fail to consider is the surreptitious recording of her client to elicit “evidence” of the pressure she “endured.” Failure to reveal a conversation with your client is being recorded is an ethical breach for Canadian attorneys that could result in disbarment.
Additionally, it’s been revealed that former AG was a political activist before she ran for office & protested the very same corporation (SNC) vehemently. Creating a plausible perception of divided loyalties & a personal motive to deny a DPA to SNC. cbc.ca/radio/asithapp…
Circling back to the prosecutions related to the crimes by SNC employees.
During the scandal’s peak monopoly of MSM news cycles, three criminal prosecutions of former SNC employees were dropped in February 2019. Largely ignored by the press, though directly related.
During the scandal’s peak monopoly of MSM news cycles, three criminal prosecutions of former SNC employees were dropped in February 2019. Largely ignored by the press, though directly related.
One former SNC executive plea bargained a minimal charge down from 15 serious criminal charges and received house arrest as a sentence. Two other SNC executives had their charges dropped altogether because of the peculiar Jordan’s Decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada has limited the amount of time prosecutors have to develop their cases. Excessive delays in getting a prosecution to trial, brought about by severe budget (>20%) & prosecutor cutbacks during the Harper Conservative Government led to Jordan’s Decision.
Further exacerbated by the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General’s refusal to address budget inadequacies in the capacity to prosecute crimes. Judicial shortages, too few prosecutors, inadequate prosecutor budgets were all ignored by Jody Wilson-Raybould.
This crisis was already determined in the 2016 Supreme Court decision, and previously identified in an Auditor General report in 2913. But no funds were requested by the MOJAG to alleviate the situation, resulting in several Criminal dropped charges due to Jordan’s Decision.
Clearly the former AG was in way over her head. Was SNC scandal intended to detract from her incompetence? Or to detract from the fact that the vast majority of SNC accused have escaped justice due to chronic underfunding of the prosecution arm of the Justice Department?
Chronic underfunding orchestrated by the former CPC Harper Government, more concerned about austerity cuts than justice being served.
You are assisting that same party (CPC) to create a false narrative that meets their political aspirations.
Interference in Canadian politics.
You are assisting that same party (CPC) to create a false narrative that meets their political aspirations.
Interference in Canadian politics.
Again I vehemently request that you please amend your article. It is disinformation and blatant American support for the American/Canadian dual citizen led Conservative Party of Canada.
I suggest if you want to opine about Canadian politics, you consider ALL the facts, not just ones that support President Trump’s personal & political interests & overlooks blatant US political operatives interference in a foreign nation’s elections & governance (I mean you).
