The role of a Corporate Compliance Monitor is also very different from a monitor in a strict implementation situation, where the monitor is more likely to serve as a government agent to assess and confirm that the necessary repair has taken place. A corporate compliance monitor should not be the agent of the government or the monitored company. The fact that an agreement has been reached to allow for the establishment of a monitor shows that the government has sufficient confidence in the company`s commitment to independently assess its compliance program and possible corrective actions taken to date, and that it will cooperate fully with the monitor and implement appropriate recommendations. The monitor should not be considered a sanction for misconduct, nor should monitoring be considered a complementary investigation conducted as a result of internal and external investigations that the company has already carried out. The monitor must be impartial and independent of all parties. The process of selecting a monitor for a company compliance check is of the utmost importance; Below is “The Selection of a Monitor” for questions related to the selection of monitors. The fact that the DOJ intended to minimize the unintended consequences and collateral damage of the business lawsuit, including the collapse of a business and the consequent consequences for employees, investors, third parties and other business stakeholders, was a step forward towards such agreements. Arthur Andersen is the prime example of the widespread destruction resulting from the persecution and condemnation of DOJ companies. Arthur Andersen, one of the world`s six leading audit firms, was indicted in 2002 and eventually convicted of obstruction of justice. The decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court, but only after the complete collapse of a $9.3 billion company (revenue) with more than 85,000 employees worldwide. Judge Richard J.
Leon in Washington, D.C., has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the negligence of a deferred prosecution agreement that imposes sanctions on a Dutch carrier for circumventing the sanctions law. Justice Leon stated that he was entitled to review the agreement in order to “protect the integrity of the judicial process” because “the parties essentially ask the court to lend its judicial imprimatur to their D.P.A.” He refused the agreement to “prosecute the accused in such an anemic manner.”