Cooperating Witness Agreement

Many complex cases of corruption and fraud cannot be done without the cooperation of an insider. It could be an honest observer, perhaps an employee who stops because he or she was aware of fraud or corruption but did not want to participate. Or perhaps it is a smaller participant in the misconduct who, as a cooperating witness, is more valuable than the subject. Specific characteristics of the offence: since the defendant`s conduct involved participation in an agreement to bid non-competitive bids, the basic penalty level is increased by 1 level in accordance with U.S.S.G. 2R1.1 (b) (1). Since the volume of transactions that can be reported to the defendant is more than $10,000,000, but less than $40,000,000, the basic penalty level is increased by 4 additional levels because the volume of transactions that can be inflicted on the defendant is more than $10,000,000, but less than $40,000,000. Honest insiders may still be reluctant to participate in the investigation for fear of revelations or reprisals. If so, emphasize the importance of the witness`s cooperation and the guarantee of confidentiality if the witness requires it. In such cases, it is also important to gather as much evidence as possible from other sources, so that the insider does not feel that he or she is the only witness in the case. The witness may be concerned that the person brought a civil action for defamation or any other legal action will be brought against him or his or her as a result of his or her cooperation, and may seek the consent of the investigating organization to compensate for any expenses or judgments that may result. Such an application should be referred to the Commission and, if approved, which is unlikely, should be limited in form and depend on the full and truthful cooperation of the witness. Offer the witness a rationalization to ease the embarrassment of revelation.

For example, in a case of corruption, the investigator might suggest to the payer that the recipient has extorted the payments and that the payer has no choice but to pay. Another witness hearing will lead to the actual circumstances. The private sector or international organizations can enter into such an agreement; Most organizations are not required to report all wrongdoing, and prosecutors are not required to prosecute it. In February 2006 and until about April 2008, Rahal participated in a plot to set prices, award contracts and offer processed tomato products, including tomato puree and diced tomatoes. The main objective of this conspiracy was to eliminate competition and set the price of processed tomato products sold in the United States. During the relevant period, Rahal was the owner and president of Intramark USA Inc., a broker that sold processed tomato products for himself and others. Rahal and its co-conspirators have agreed to set prices to charge customers in the United States for processed tomato products in Eastern California and elsewhere. To comply with their agreements, Rahal and its conspirators made artificially excessive offers and price offers. Rahal also took note of the implementation of the agreements by requesting and disseminating information on the prices offered by co-conspirators and competitors to the customers of the object. In at least one case, a co-conspirator withdrew an offer that did not comply with agreed prices after being confronted with information received from the customer by Rahal. Telling the truth should come easily, but we must also see the old demons through cross-trial. “It was different when, before I testified, I worked with FBI agents and prosecutors because it was only a normal part of my life, which was not normal.” Bistrong generally worked on a number of professional projects, while he worked full-time for nearly 3 years for the Feds Undercover.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.