Consent Agreements, Decrees, and Orders

IN THE U.S. justice system, a consent agreement refers to a voluntary approval or mutual understanding between two or more people. Such an agreement may then provide authorization for some act or purpose. An order can be defined as a written command or direction that is delivered by a judge or a court. Similarly, a related term, decree, serves to convey a declaration of a court by announcing legal consequences of the facts in a particular case. In the field of white-collar crime, all three of these terms are typically heard most often with regard to corporate crime.

Beginning with the early work of Edwin Sutherland, who conducted research on both white-collar crime and corporate crime, criminologists have been interested in the punishment of these offenders. Compared to common or street criminals, the perception that white-collar workers and corporations are sanctioned more leniently has persisted. However, the public has increasingly supported the idea of stricter punishment for white-collar offenders and particularly, corporations. Many of the most serious forms of white-collar crime have been perpetrated by corporations. Some corporate crimes, such as those resulting in environmental pollution, other damages, or even death, are viewed by the public as more serious than others.

A variety of sanctions may be used against individual white-collar offenders or entire corporations. For corporations, one of the most common of these is a monetary fine. In addition to this regularly used sanction, prosecutors have also attached penalties and terms that are very specific to the offense. Fines and other types of penalties, such as community service requirements, are regularly contained within consent agreements and court orders.

Although the terms of consent agreements and orders may vary, one recent example of corporate crime outlines some general terms. In this case, decided in the summer of 2001, Liberty Publishing, a telemarketing company operating in the state of Pennsylvania, was sued for engaging in deceptive business practices and intimidation tactics during the course of a fundraising campaign. Although the campaign raised over $3 million for police organizations, numerous acts of deception were uncovered. The consent agreement included the following specific terms: the company was banned from telemarketing in the state of Pennsylvania, its owner was ordered to pay $75,000 in restitution to consumers, as well as investigation costs and civil penalties.