Other measures proposed in the coalition agreement are new specific and transparent rules for setting fines for companies and “new penalty instruments” (although the details of these proposed instruments are not yet known). However, the draft law on the implementation of the criminal liability of undertakings and other legal persons by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia provided, inter alia, for the forced dissolution of undertakings as a last resort. In any event, the coalition agreement provides, in line with the international trend of Naming and Shaming, that sanctions imposed on companies are generally made public by appropriate means, as is the case in Germany for company penalties in the area of capital markets law. This proposed enforcement obligation must be offset by specific rules on when and how investigations can be closed without imposing sanctions on companies. The reason for these proposed rules is to give the judiciary the flexibility it needs in practice and to encourage companies to proactively draw the attention of law enforcement authorities to issues and to cooperate with their investigations. The coalition agreement does not specify under what particular circumstances such agreements may be concluded or how they may be agreed in practice. However, judging by the recent similar proposals mentioned above, it can be expected that the termination of investigations instead of the imposition of sanctions will only be possible under clearly defined and relatively narrow conditions. For example, the draft law on the implementation of criminal liability of companies and other legal persons, proposed by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia in 2013, states that it is relevant to decide whether a trading transaction may or may not be appropriate if the legal person concerned has contributed to the detection of infringements through self-declaration. whether it has cooperated with the investigating authorities and has taken sufficient compliance measures to avoid similar new infringements.
DPAs were introduced in the UK by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and have been available since February 2014. DPAs allow for the stay of proceedings for a specified period of time. There is no time limit to the agreement, provided that the organization meets certain conditions. DPAs are discreet and are initiated by a formal invitation letter from the Serious Fraud Office or the Crown Prosecution Service, which invites the company to negotiate. They are available to businesses, not individuals, and are only available for certain offences, including corruption, money laundering, misaling and certain sanctions breaches. In the five years following the entry into force of the DPAs, Sarclad Ltd., Standard Bank, Rolls-Royce, Serco Geografix Ltd. and Tesco, the only DPA not linked to corruption, were involved. To obtain a CCA, companies do not need to admit charges in court. However, they must accept an information statement that highlights the facts found and the alleged fault.
Data protection authorities must be fair, proportionate and proportionate, although there is no legal time limit for data protection services. . . .