The Boeing Company (Boeing) has entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to resolve a criminal charge related to a conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Evaluation Group (FAA AEG) in connection with the FAA AEG’s evaluation of Boeing’s 737 MAX airplane. Boeing, a U.S.-based multinational corporation that designs, manufactures, and sells commercial airplanes to airlines worldwide, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in connection with a criminal information filed today in the Northern District of Texas. The criminal information charges the company with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Under the terms of the DPA, Boeing will pay a total criminal monetary amount of over $2.5 billion, composed of a criminal monetary penalty of $243.6 million, compensation payments of [etc., making up the total]. . “Today's deferred prosecution agreement holds Boeing and its employees accountable for their lack of candor with the FAA regarding MCAS,” said Special Agent in Charge Emmerson Buie Jr. of the FBI’s Chicago Field Office.
Does this constitute an admission of guilt on the part of Boeing? Can we actually say that they are "guilty of fraud"? Or is there something more subtle going on here? If it is not an admission of guilt, but is not treated as complete innocence (outside the whatever the DFA requires), what difference could this make to anything else the company does or gets involved in (such as, e.g., other lawsuits)?
asked Aug 25, 2022 at 15:12 189 2 2 silver badges 9 9 bronze badgesMost DPA agreements require the company to accept that all the facts the government alleges are true. This one is no exception. Here's what it says:
The Company admits, accepts, and acknowledges that it is responsible under United States law for the acts of its officers, directors, employees, and agents as charged in the Information, and as set forth in the Statement of Facts, and that the allegations described in the Information and the facts described in the Statement of Facts are true and accurate. The Company agrees that, effective as of the date it signs this Agreement, in any prosecution that is deferred by this Agreement, it will not dispute the Statement of Facts set forth in this Agreement, and, in any such prosecution, the Statement of Facts shall be admissible as: (a) substantive evidence offered by the government in its case-in-chief and rebuttal case; (b) impeachment evidence offered by the government on cross-examination; and (c) evidence at any sentencing hearing or other hearing. In addition, in connection therewith, the Company agrees not to assert any claim under the United States Constitution, Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section 1B1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG” or “Sentencing Guidelines”), or any other federal rule that the Statement of Facts should be suppressed or is otherwise inadmissible as evidence in any form.
In theory, however, Boeing has not accepted that this set of facts actually constitutes a crime. But this is from that statement:
From at least in or around November 2016 through at least in or around December 2018, in the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, the Defendant, THE BOEING COMPANY, knowingly and willfully, and with the intent to defraud, conspired and agreed together with others to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, defeating, and interfering with, by dishonest means, the lawful function of a United States government agency, to wit, the Federal Aviation Administration Aircraft Evaluation Group (“FAA AEG”) within the United States Department of Transportation, in connection with the FAA AEG’s evaluation of the Boeing 737 MAX airplane’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (“MCAS”), including for purposes of the 737 MAX Flight Standardization Board Report (“FSB Report”) and the 737 MAX differences-training determination.
It's entirely fair to characterize the combination of those two things as an admission of guilt. Should Boeing violate the terms of the DPA, the government would have a very easy time proving fraud because of the admissions Boeing made and the defenses Boeing waived. The government wouldn't have entered into the DPA if they didn't believe they were sufficient.