The case relates to an alleged criminal cartel arrangement between Deutsche Bank ( Deutsche), Citigroup, JP Morgan ( JPM) and the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group ( ANZ), in respect of an AUD $2.5 billion ANZ share placement in 2015 (hereafter, will be referred to as the Banking Cartel Case). Ultimately, we consider that while this issue raises fundamental questions regarding the maintenance of LPP claims in the context of an immunity process, it is unlikely to be determinative in the context of a corporation making a decision about whether or not to seek to become an IA, and may instead be a broader policy question for regulators to consider.īackground to the Banking Cartel Case prosecution We also consider possible strategies that regulators/prosecutors may be minded to adopt to practically reduce this risk for immunity/leniency applicants. In particular, we consider practical strategies prospective immunity (and leniency) applicants can take, when undertaking their internal cartel investigations and before they decide to engage with the regulators in respect of their involvement in the alleged cartel conduct (including by comparative reference to UK practices as we understand them). In this paper, we provide an overview of this issue and consider its practical implications. the external counsel engaged by the IA) providing legal advice and services to the IA. The issue at the centre of the dispute, and the focus of this paper, is whether a prospective cartel immunity applicant can reconcile its continuous disclosure obligations (required to maintain its immunity status), with its desire to protect confidential information and documents created as part of (i.e. The issue came to light in a recent interlocutory judgment in a prosecution of an alleged criminal cartel arrangement in the financial services industry. Yet, despite its well-established jurisprudential position, its utilisation to protect internal cartel investigation records of criminal cartel immunity applicants ( IA) from being disclosed to the regulator/investigator, the prosecutor and/or the defendants and/or the court in a cartel prosecution in Australia is unclear. As the Australian High Court once declared, it is “ a practical guarantee of fundamental constitutional or human rights”.
#Prosecuting attorney in storm in a teacup professional
Legal professional privilege ( LPP) has long been recognised as a powerful, though controversial protection.
0 kommentar(er)
