In DPAs in the United Kingdom, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have been admitted to fraud, corruption and other economic crimes.   Unlike the US model, UK courts play a role in approving proposed deferred prosecution agreements, which contributes to public transparency.     In 2017, the UK extended its use to cases of tax evasion. [Citation required] Subsequently, the provisions gave rise to some political controversies. SNC-Lavalin, a leading Canadian engineering firm, is facing criminal charges under the Criminal Code and the Corruption of Foreign Officials Act in connection with its business in Libya, and was one of the first companies to aspire to a deferred prosecution agreement. The United States, Great Britain, France and Canada (among others) are all parties to the convention. Article 5 of the OECD Agreement provides, inter alia: (5) We note that SNC-Lavalin`s application for judicial review of the DDP`s decision was dismissed by the Federal Court on March 8, 2019; see SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. vs. Canada (Crown), 2019 FC 282. SNC-Lavalin then appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal (see online: before agreeing with the Crown on December 18, 2019. According to Graham Steele of Dalhousie University – a Rhodes Scholar, lawyer and former Nova Scotia provincial finance minister – “investigation and criminal prosecution.
Transnational cases of corruption can be incredibly difficult, time-consuming and costly.  Criminal proceedings last for years and it is very difficult for prosecutors to prove without a doubt that the accused is guilty.  Steele stated that in Canada, while the Attorney General “must sign a CCA,” the Attorney General does not enter into an agreement or requires an attorney to initiate an agreement.  Part XXII.1 also sets out the conditions that must be met before a Crown prosecutor can enter into negotiations with an offending organization. One of these conditions is that the competent Attorney General must agree to the negotiation of the agreement. . . .