Civil DEA Settlement Doesn’t Stop Criminal Prosecution

Civil DEA Settlement Doesn’t Stop Criminal Prosecution

If you settled a civil or administrative matter with the DEA, you may believe the worst is behind you. You paid the fine. You signed the consent agreement. You implemented corrective actions. You thought you had closed the chapter on a difficult period in your career.

You are wrong.

That civil settlement you signed explicitly preserves the government’s right to prosecute you criminally. It says so in the document. The fine you paid does not buy immunity. The admissions you made to settle the administrative case can be used against you in criminal court. The closure you thought you achieved was an illusion.

This is the brutal reality that practitioners across the country have learned too late. Civil and criminal proceedings are separate tracks. Resolving one does not resolve the other. And the civil settlement that cost you $200,000 and months of stress may be building the criminal case that costs you your freedom.

The Settlement That Dosent Protect You

Heres the paradox that catches practitioners by surprise. You paid a substantial fine to make the DEA problem go away. That fine bought you nothing except the end of the administrative proceeding. The criminal investigation may be just beginning.

Every DEA civil settlement agreement contains language explicitly preserving the government’s right to pursue criminal prosecution. Its not hidden. Its in the document you signed. You agreed to pay a fine in exchange for resolution of the civil matter – and that resolution explicitly carves out criminal liability.

Read that again. The settlement you signed to make this go away says in writing that criminal prosecution can still happen.

Why would anyone sign such an agreement? Becuase the alternative is worse in the short term. Fighting administrative proceedings is expensive. Losing your DEA registration destroys your practice. The civil settlement offers a path forward – pay the fine, implement corrective actions, keep your license. Most practitioners take that deal.

But taking that deal means accepting criminal exposure. The settlement dosent say “we will prosecute you criminally.” It says “we can prosecute you criminally.” Those are very different statements. One promises consequences. The other preserves options.

The DEA preserves those options becuase they may not know yet whether criminal prosecution is warranted. They preserve those options becuase the U.S. Attorney’s office makes that decision independently. They preserve those options becuase criminal investigation takes time – and the civil settlement gives them time.

What Double Jeopardy Actualy Means – And Dosent Mean

Heres the uncomfortable truth about constitutional protection. Double jeopardy does not protect you from criminal prosecution after civil settlement. The Fifth Amendment protection against being tried twice for the same offense applies only to criminal proceedings. It does not apply between civil and criminal proceedings.

You can be fined civilly for exactly the same conduct you are later prosecuted criminally for. You can pay millions in civil penalties and then go to prison for the same actions. The Constitution does not prevent this. Double jeopardy does not work the way most people think it works.

The legal principle is simple. Civil and criminal proceedings serve different purposes. Civil penalties are remedial – they address harm and deter future violations. Criminal penalties are punitive – they punish wrongdoing and protect society. These are separate functions of government. Pursuing both is not “trying you twice” in the constitutional sense.

The Supreme Court established this in United States v. Lanza back in 1922. Different sovereigns – federal and state governments – can prosecute for the same conduct without triggering double jeopardy. And different types of proceedings – civil and criminal – can proceed for the same conduct without constitutional conflict.

What does this mean for you? It means the civil settlement you achieved protected you from one thing only – further civil proceedings for the specific conduct covered by the settlement. It did not protect you from criminal prosecution. It did not protect you from state licensing action. It did not protect you from federal administrative consequences.

You are not protected. You were never protected.

How Civil Admissions Become Criminal Evidence

Heres the consequence cascade that destroys practitioners who think civil settlements are confidential. You negotiated a civil settlement with the DEA. Part of that negotiation involved admitting certain facts. You admitted that controlled substance records were inaccurate. You admitted that certain prescriptions lacked documentation. You admitted that inventory controls were deficient.

Those admissions exist. They are documented. They can be used against you.

When prosecutors decide to pursue criminal charges, they dont start from scratch. They have the entire civil investigation file. They have your settlement agreement. They have the admissions you made to resolve the civil matter. They have evidence you voluntarily provided.

The admissions that seemed minor in a civil context – “we acknowledge that record-keeping was not always consistent” – become devastating in a criminal context. Prosecutors can argue you admitted knowledge of violations. You admitted awareness of problems. You admitted that you knew something was wrong and continued anyway.

Heres the irony that catches practitioners by surprise. You cooperated with civil investigators to demonstrate good faith. You admitted mistakes to show accountability. You provided documents to show transparency. That cooperation, those admissions, those documents – they dont demonstrate good faith to prosecutors. They demonstrate guilt.

The civil settlement you signed may not have been an admission of liability for civil purposes – many settlements explicitly say they are not. But that legal fiction does not bind criminal prosecutors. The facts you admitted are still facts. The documents you provided are still evidence. The admissions you made are still admissions.

The Three Tracks Running Against You

Heres the hidden connection that explains why practitioners face multiple jeopardy even without “double jeopardy” protection. There are three separate enforcement tracks that can run simultaneusly against you – federal administrative, federal criminal, and state licensing. Resolving one does not resolve the others.

When DEA takes administrative action against you, your state licensing board is notified automaticaly. This notification triggers a separate investigation. The state board has its own authority, its own procedures, its own penalties. They can revoke your license independent of what the DEA does.

Federal criminal prosecution is a third track. The U.S. Attorney’s office decides whether to pursue charges. They consider the DEA investigation. They consider the civil settlement. They make there own determination. Civil resolution does not bind them.

And heres the consequence cascade that multiplies exposure. You settle the federal administrative case. The state board receives notification. The state board opens investigation. The state board uses federal investigation materials. Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney reviews the case for criminal prosecution. The criminal investigation uses the same materials.

You settled one case. You now face three.

This is not theoretical. This is standard practice. When DEA takes significant action against a healthcare provider, parallel proceedings at the state level are essentially automatic. Criminal referral is always possible. The civil settlement that seemed to close the matter actualy opened new fronts.

Corporate Settlements Dont Protect Individuals

Heres the irony that hospital pharmacists and chain pharmacy employees need to understand. When your employer settles with the DEA, that settlement does not protect you. Corporate liability and individual liability are completly separate. The corporation can pay millions to resolve its exposure while you remain criminaly liable for your individual actions.

Walgreens paid $350 million to settle allegations that the company filled opioid prescriptions despite clear indicators of diversion risk. Three hundred fifty million dollars. That settlement resolved Walgreens’ civil exposure. It did not resolve the exposure of the individual pharmacists who filled those prescriptions.

Every pharmacist who filled a prescription that contributed to that $350 million settlement remains potentialy criminaly liable. The corporate settlement explicitly did not protect them. They can still be prosecuted. They can still go to prison. The corporation’s resolution does not cover there individual conduct.

This applies across healthcare settings. Hospital settlements dont protect the physicians and nurses who work there. Pharmacy chain settlements dont protect the pharmacists who dispensed. Practice group settlements dont protect the individual prescribers. Corporate liability and individual liability exist on separate tracks.

Heres the system revelation that employees need to understand. When corporations settle, they are buying their way out. Part of what they buy is the right to shift blame to individuals. Part of what they buy is cooperation agreements that require them to assist in prosecuting employees. The corporation’s settlement may actualy make your prosecution more likely – becuase the corporation is now helping the government build cases against individuals.

The Dual Sovereignty Trap

Heres the system revelation that extends your exposure even further. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, both federal and state governments can prosecute you for the same conduct. This is not double jeopardy. This is separate sovereigns exercising separate authority.

United States v. Lanza established this principle over a century ago. Federal prosecution does not bar state prosecution. State prosecution does not bar federal prosecution. Each sovereign has independent authority to enforce its own laws. The same conduct can violate both federal and state law – and you can be prosecuted by both.

What does this mean in the DEA context? You can settle your federal administrative case, pay a federal civil fine, face federal criminal prosecution, AND face state criminal prosecution. The federal settlement does not bind the state. The federal prosecution does not bar the state. Each sovereign acts independently.

This is especialy relevant for controlled substance violations. Diversion of controlled substances violates federal law. It also violates state law. Overprescribing violates federal regulations. It also violates state pharmacy and medical practice acts. Every action that gets you in trouble federaly can also get you in trouble at the state level.

The dual sovereignty trap means you can never truly resolve your exposure through settlement. You can settle with the federal government. The state can still prosecute. You can settle with the state. Other states where you dispensed can still prosecute. Complete resolution requires negotiating with every sovereign that has jurisdiction – and some of them may not want to negotiate.

The Language You Didnt Read

Heres the specific detail that practitioners miss when signing civil settlements. The settlement agreement contains language explicitly preserving criminal prosecution rights. It says, in various formulations, that the agreement does not constitute immunity from criminal prosecution and that the government reserves all rights to pursue criminal charges.

Most practitioners dont read this language carefully. They are focused on the fine amount. They are focused on whether they keep there license. They are focused on getting the matter resolved. The language about criminal prosecution seems like boilerplate.

It is not boilerplate. It is the government ensuring they can prosecute you later.

Heres the inversion practitioners need to understand. You thought settling meant closure. It meant evidence gathering was complete. The DEA has everything they need. They have your admissions. They have your documents. They have your cooperation. Now they decide whether to use it criminaly.

The settlement you signed was not the end. It was a milestone in an ongoing process. The government got what they needed from the civil track. Now they evaluate the criminal track. Your settlement made there job easier, not harder.

Some practitioners have experienced the worst version of this. They settled civil cases, paid substantial fines, implemented corrective actions, and believed they had moved on. Two years later, they recieved target letters. Three years later, they were indicted. The conduct they thought was resolved became criminal charges.

The statute of limitations for federal drug charges is typically five years. The clock does not stop running becuase you settled a civil case. Prosecutors have years to decide whether to charge you – and your civil settlement gives them time to build there case.

What You Should Do If Your Offered a Civil Settlement

If DEA offers you a civil settlement, you need to understand exactly what you are agreeing to before you sign.

First, the settlement does not protect you from criminal prosecution. Read the language. It says so explicitly. If you are concerned about criminal exposure, the civil settlement does not address that concern.

Second, any admissions you make in the settlement can be used against you. Even if the settlement says it is not an admission of liability, the facts you acknowledge are still facts. Consider carefully what you are admitting and how those admissions could be characterized criminaly.

Third, the civil settlement may make criminal prosecution more likely, not less. Once you settle, the government has your cooperation, your documents, your admissions. They have a complete investigative record. They can take there time deciding whether to charge you.

Fourth, corporate settlements dont protect you. If your employer is settling and you are being asked to participate, understand that the corporate settlement may not include you. You may need separate representation. You may need a separate agreement.

Fifth, state exposure continues even after federal settlement. The federal civil settlement does not bind your state licensing board. It does not bind state criminal authorities. You may need to address state exposure separately.

What should you actualy do? Get criminal defense counsel before you sign any civil settlement. Not just regulatory counsel. Not just administrative lawyers. Criminal defense lawyers who understand how civil admissions become criminal evidence. Lawyers who can evaluate your criminal exposure and advise whether the civil settlement helps or hurts that exposure.

The civil settlement may still be the right choice. Preserving your license may be essential to your livelihood. But you should make that choice with full understanding of what the settlement does and does not accomplish. You should understand that paying the fine does not buy safety. You should understand that the criminal exposure continues.

The Settlement Examples That Should Worry You

Heres the pattern that emerges from DEA civil settlements. Practitioners pay substantial fines, implement corrective actions, and believe they have resolved there exposure. The settlement language says otherwise.

A physician agreed to pay $190,731 to settle Controlled Substances Act claims. He also surrendered his DEA registration for Schedule II and IIN controlled substances and agreed not to reapply for at least five years. The settlement explicitly stated it was not an admission of liability. But the settlement also explicitly preserved the government’s right to pursue criminal charges. That physician paid nearly two hundred thousand dollars and lost his ability to prescribe – and still faces potential criminal prosecution.

Hazlehurst Pharmacy and its pharmacist agreed to pay up to $2.1 million for dispensing thousands of illegitimate prescriptions. Two million dollars. That settlement resolved the civil case. It did not eliminate criminal exposure. The pharmacist who dispensed those prescriptions could still face federal charges for each prescription the government considers illegitimate.

Centurion Correctional Healthcare agreed to a $215,000 settlement for continuing to acquire and dispense controlled substances after its DEA registration expired. The company admitted the conduct. The settlement resolved the civil matter. Criminal exposure for the individuals involved remained.

In every one of these cases, the settlement language preserved criminal prosecution rights. In every case, individuals who participated in the underlying conduct remained potentialy liable. In every case, the fine – however substantial – bought resolution of one proceeding, not immunity from all proceedings.

The False Sense of Closure

The worst consequence of civil settlement is psychological. You believe the matter is resolved. You believe you can move on. You stop thinking about criminal exposure. You stop preparing for the possibility of prosecution.

This false sense of closure leaves you vulnerable.

Federal criminal investigations take time. Prosecutors have competing priorities. Cases take years to develop. The fact that you haven’t heard anything since your civil settlement does not mean criminal prosecution is off the table. It means prosecutors haven’t decided yet.

Some practitioners have lived with this false sense of closure for years. They settled. They moved on. They rebuilt there practices. Then they recieved target letters. The criminal case had been building the entire time. The settlement had not stopped anything.

If you settled a civil DEA matter, you should assume criminal exposure continues until the statute of limitations expires. You should preserve documents. You should maintain relationships with criminal defense counsel. You should be prepared for the possibility that the matter is not actualy closed.

The civil settlement resolved one proceeding. The criminal threat remains. Understanding this distinction is essential to protecting yourself.

The settlement you signed did not buy safety. It bought time. Whether that time works for you or against you depends on what you do with it.

The civil fine you paid was not the price of immunity. It was the cost of resolving one proceeding while preserving your exposure in all others. The criminal threat remains active. The state licensing threat remains active. The only thing that changed is that the federal government took your money and preserved its right to take your freedom too.

Understanding this distinction may be the difference between preparation and blindsided devastation. The settlement was not the end. For many practitioners, it is only the beginning.