Another punishment that exists in the United States is in the form of the establishment of a supervisory body or auditor of a corporation or outside it, called monitoring. In the Siemens sentence, I chose to call him the cattle. In any case, his role is similar to that of a probation officer. This punishment of supervision exists in the United States both following a conviction but also in certain circumstances of non-conviction (NPA or Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). As a rule, the prosecution reaches these arrangements with corporations suspected of criminal offenses in order to prevent them from being prosecuted and the damages that accompany it. In order to avoid prosecution, the suspected corporations agree to implement a compliance program, control and enforcement that the prosecution is on. In some cases, a supervisor is appointed to the company, whose job it is to ensure that the company has an effective policy to ensure that offenses are prevented. Today, the United States Sentencing Commission (U.S. Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual) (Nov. 2014) (hereinafter: the U.S. Penal Guidelines or the Sentencing Guidelines), in Section 8 D1.1(a)(6) that the court shall order a company to be put to the test:
“if such sentence is necessary to ensure that changes are made within the organization to reduce the likelihood of future criminal conduct.”
The main use of these agreements is for corruption and fraud offenses (see Lauren Giudice, "Regulating Corruption: Analyzing Uncertainty in Current Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement," 91 Boston U. L. Rev. 347, 361 (2011), however, I am of the opinion that the condemnation of things is also appropriate for offenses of this type in which the defendants were convicted in the case before me. The importance of these agreements is mainly in cases where, as in the case before me, only the cooperation of the defendants led to the prosecution of the organs and employees who committed the offenses (see Lisa Kern Griffin, "Compelled Cooperation and the New Corporate Criminal Procedure," 82 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 311, 331 (2007).