Blog
Non-Prosecution Agreements: Cooperating Without Pleading Guilty
A non-prosecution agreement is the closest thing the federal system offers to a second chance for someone who does not deserve one. That sentence requires qualification, and the qualification is the point: the person receiving the agreement has done something wrong, has admitted to it in writing, and has agreed to become an instrument of the government’s investigation into someone else. The agreement does not erase the conduct. It reclassifies the person who committed it, from target to cooperator, and in doing so it trades one form of exposure for another.
Most people who contact this office about a potential NPA have already decided to cooperate before they understand what cooperation entails. The word sounds voluntary, and in the federal system, that word has a meaning most people do not discover until they have already signed.
The Collapse of Arthur Andersen
The modern NPA exists because of a prosecution that worked too well. In 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Arthur Andersen LLP for obstruction of justice in the Enron matter. The indictment was sound on its face: Andersen personnel had directed the destruction of audit records while the SEC investigation was already underway.
The firm was convicted. The Supreme Court later reversed that conviction without dissent, finding the jury instructions deficient. By then the reversal was academic. Andersen had surrendered its CPA license and ceased to function. Something close to twenty-eight thousand employees had lost their positions.
The lesson the Department drew from Andersen was not about prosecutorial restraint in the moral sense. It was about calibration. A criminal conviction against a corporate entity, even one later overturned, inflicts reputational damage that no acquittal repairs. The NPA emerged as an instrument for extracting cooperation, restitution, and structural reform without triggering the collapse that a formal charge produces.
Whether that rationale has been applied consistently is a question the Department has never answered to anyone’s satisfaction.
The 2024 Pilot Program for Individuals
For most of its history, the NPA belonged to corporations. Companies received non-prosecution treatment. Individuals received plea agreements, or immunity grants under 18 U.S.C. § 6002, or they received nothing. The Criminal Division’s April 2024 Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosures altered that architecture.
Under the program, an individual who voluntarily discloses original information about certain categories of corporate crime, cooperates in full, and returns any proceeds of the misconduct will receive an NPA. The program covers violations by financial institutions, market integrity offenses, FCPA violations, healthcare fraud, federal contracting fraud, and domestic bribery. The eligibility criteria are specific. The disclosure must precede any government inquiry on the subject. The information must be original, meaning not previously known to any Department component. The individual must not be a CEO, CFO, domestic government official, or the organizer of the scheme, and must provide what the Department calls substantial assistance in the investigation of persons equally or more culpable.
The program represents, if we are being precise, not a new power but a formalization of discretion that prosecutors have always possessed. The Justice Manual at Section 9-27.600 has long permitted NPAs for cooperating witnesses. What the pilot program adds is a published set of criteria under which the agreement becomes what the Department terms “mandatory.” That word carries less certainty than it appears to. Prosecutors retain considerable latitude in determining whether the criteria have been satisfied, and that latitude is the program’s quiet center.
What Cooperation Requires
Cooperation under an NPA is not a transaction. A plea agreement is a transaction: the defendant pleads guilty, the government recommends a sentence, the court decides. An NPA is a relationship, and relationships impose obligations that are not visible at the point of entry.
Cooperation means complete disclosure. Not disclosure of the facts the cooperator considers relevant, but disclosure of every fact the government requests, including facts that implicate the cooperator in conduct beyond the scope of the original agreement. It means making oneself available for interviews, for testimony before a grand jury, and for trial testimony that may not occur for years. The cooperator’s account of events will be tested against documents, against the accounts of others, and against the government’s own developing theory, which may shift in ways the cooperator did not foresee when the agreement was signed.
And any material inconsistency (the government defines “material” in this context with a generosity that tends to favor the government, as one might expect from an institution that drafted the agreement and retains the sole authority to declare it breached) can void the agreement entirely. The government does not need to prove the inconsistency was intentional. It needs to conclude, in its own judgment, that the cooperator’s account was not complete.
We approach the cooperation phase with a different set of concerns than the initial disclosure, and that distinction matters for how we prepare a client. At the disclosure stage, the question is whether the information is valuable enough to warrant the agreement. At the cooperation stage, the question becomes whether the cooperator can sustain, over months or years of scrutiny, the account they provided at the beginning. We have seen agreements collapse not because the cooperator lied, but because the cooperator’s memory of events proved less precise than their initial statement suggested, and the government treated the gap as a failure of candor. For that reason, we spend substantial time before any disclosure preparing the cooperator for the difference between what they believe happened and what they can support with records. The difference is substantial, and most cooperators underestimate it.
There is a particular silence that settles over a conference room when a cooperator realizes, mid-preparation, that a fact they were certain about cannot be corroborated. It is not the silence of deception; it is the silence of someone discovering that memory is not evidence.
The Document That Replaces a Verdict
Every NPA contains a statement of facts that the cooperator must acknowledge, and the statement reads the way a confession reads because it functions as one. The statement describes the cooperator’s conduct in terms that satisfy every element of the relevant offense, stops short of a formal charge, and resides in a file at the Department of Justice for the duration of the agreement.
If the cooperator fulfills every obligation, the agreement expires and no charges are filed. If the cooperator breaches, the statement of facts becomes the foundation of a prosecution in which the cooperator has already provided the government with its entire case. The agreement permitted this.
Some clients, upon first reviewing a draft statement of facts, object to the specificity. They want to acknowledge general involvement without conceding the particularities of what they did, when, and with whom. This instinct is understandable. It is also counterproductive. The government is interested in a document it can file as an exhibit if the relationship fails, and the specificity of the statement is the price of the agreement.
The statement of facts is the most consequential document in the NPA. It is also the one most clients want to spend the least time reading.
Whether any of this constitutes justice in the sense that a civilian would recognize the term is a question I find less settled than the preceding paragraphs might suggest.
Timing and the Decision to Disclose
Under the 2024 pilot program, the disclosure must be voluntary, and the Department defines that word with a specificity that functions as a trap for the unwary. Voluntary means the individual has come forward before any federal inquiry, before any preexisting reporting obligation has been triggered, and before the threat of imminent disclosure. In practice, the window for voluntary disclosure is smaller than it appears.
The moment an internal investigation begins at the cooperator’s company, the clock accelerates. The company itself has reason to disclose under the Department’s Corporate Enforcement Policy, and under the March 2026 department-wide framework, a qualifying corporate disclosure can result in a presumptive declination. The company and the individual are now moving toward the same door. The company does not need to inform the individual that it is moving. We have seen cases where an employee retained counsel to explore a disclosure only to learn that the company’s general counsel had already contacted the Department.
The practical consequence is that delay is the most expensive decision a potential cooperator can make. Not because the Department penalizes delay as such, but because every day that passes increases the probability that someone else will disclose first, rendering the cooperator’s information no longer original and the agreement no longer available.
Three cases in the past two years followed this pattern.
What the Agreement Cannot Provide
A non-prosecution agreement resolves federal criminal exposure. It does not resolve state charges, civil liability, regulatory consequences, or the reputational cost that accompanies a public acknowledgment of misconduct. It does not prevent the cooperator’s name from appearing in court filings related to the prosecution of others.
One ought to approach the NPA the way one approaches surgery: as a remedy preferable to the alternative, not as a restoration of the condition that existed before anything went wrong. The condition that existed before is not recoverable. The question is which version of the aftermath one can survive.
A consultation with this firm assumes nothing, costs nothing, and is the point at which the diagnosis begins.