The FSC does not explain why the fairness and importance of the company`s non-management in terms of the strength of its case might require such disclosure when individuals are charged, but does not require that they not be charged if they are not. Given the importance of testimony in assessing evidence by a prosecutor (as well as in any proceedings), companies would be well advised to request such disclosure in order to develop their own vision of the strength of criminal proceedings. This would allow them to play an informed role in the negotiations and ensure that they are not misled about the strength of the criminal proceedings. Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher`s lawyers are available to answer questions about these developments. If you would like to discuss this warning in detail, please contact lawyer Gibson Dunn, with whom you usually work, the authors or one of the following members of british practice. Among the standard concepts as described in the DPA code is the company`s agreement that: In addition, the DPA code contains other non-exhaustive factors that should be considered. Other factors of public interest in the support of criminal prosecution are:  A Dpa has the effect of deferring the prosecution of the offences charged in the indictment. The data protection authority should not include a term that would prevent the company from being prosecuted for conduct not included in the indictment, even if the unassured conduct was disclosed during the DPA negotiations.  In addition to the satisfaction given to one of the two members of the trial of evidence, the prosecutor must be satisfied that the introduction of a data protection authority with the company would adequately satisfy the public interest rather than be prosecuted.
 This requires a balanced exercise of the factors that tend to support prosecutions and those that do not. The factors considered relevant and the weight given to each are within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.  This is an important provision in any data protection authority, particularly where investigations and/or criminal prosecutions are likely to be conducted as part of the statement of facts.  The SFO Corporate Co-operation Guidance should be considered to ascertain whether any reference is made to conduct that should be explicitly referred to by the data protection authority in this Parliament, with the company stating its readiness to provide support to the SFO beyond statutory assistance.