Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29451288/US-v-Daimler-Export-and-Trade-Finance-Plea-Agreement
Timestamp: 2013-12-21 07:22:05
Document Index: 765484291

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 37', '§ 78', '§ 78', '§ 3571', '§ 3561', '§ 3013', '§ 78', '§ 3571', '§ 3561', '§ 3013', '§ 3553']

P. 1US v. Daimler Export and Trade Finance - Plea AgreementUS v. Daimler Export and Trade Finance - Plea AgreementRatings: 0|Views: 1,089|Likes: 0Published by The Russia MonitorMore info:Categories:Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: The Russia Monitor on Apr 05, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/29451288/US-v-Daimler-Export-and-Trade-Finance-Plea-Agreement07/02/2013pdftextoriginal U.S. Department of Justice
MarchZ2i 2010
Manin J. Weinstein
Washington, DC 20006Carl S. Raub
555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20004
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20005
COUFfff
RE: United States v. Daimler Export and Trade Finance GmbH
This letter sets forth the full and complete plea offer to your client, Daimler Export
and Trade Finance GmbH (hereinafer "ETF" or "defendant"). This offer is by the Criminal
Division, Fraud Section, of
the U.S. Deparent of Justice (hereinafer the "Deparment or "Fraud
Section"), and thus does not bind any other division or section of
the Deparment of Justice or any
other federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authority. This agreement does
not apply to any charges other than those specifically mentioned herein. However, the Deparmentwil bring this agreement and the cooperation ofETF, its ultimate parent Daimler AG, and its direct
or indirect affiliates and subsidiaries to the attention of other authorities or other agencies, if
requested. Upon receipt and execution by or on behalf ofETF, the executed letter wil itselfbecome
the plea agreement (the "Agreement"). The terms of
Charges: Pursuantto Fed. R. Crim. P. 1 l( c)(l )(C), ETF agrees to waive its right to
grand jury indictment and its right to challenge venue in the United States District Cour for the
District of Columbia, and to plead guilty to a two-count information charging ETF with conspiracy
Case 1:10-cr-00065-RJL Document 3-1 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 39
to commit an offense against the United States, in violation ofl8 U.S.c. § 37l, that is, to violate the
Foreign Corrpt Practices Act ("FCPA"), as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3 (Count One), and with
violating the anti-briberyprovisions of
the FCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3 (Count Two). It is understood
that the gulty plea wil be based on a factual admission of guilt to the offenses charged and wil be
entered in accordance with Rule II of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. An authorized
representative ofETF wil admit that ETF is in fact guilty. By virte of a corporate resolution dated
, in the form attached to this Agreement as Attachment B, or a substantially
similar form, ETF has authorized this plea and has empowered the General Counsel of
("Daimler") and/or its outside counsel - Willkie Far & Gallagher LLP, Hogan & Hartson LLP, and
Skadden Ars Slate Meagher & Flom LLP - to act on its behalf for puroses of this plea. ETFagrees that it has the full legal right, power, and authority to enter into and perform all of its
obligations under this agreement, and it agrees to abide by all terms and obligations of
as described herein. The "Statement of Offense" attached to this agreement as Attachment A, is afair and accurate description of the facts the Deparment believes, and ETF accepts, can be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt and through admissible evidence regarding defendant's actions and
involvement in the offense. ETF is pleading gulty because it is guilty of the charges contained in
the accompanying Information and admits and accepts responsibility for the conduct described in
the Statement of the Offense. Prior to the Rule 1 1 plea hearing, defendant, through counsel, wil
adopt and sign the Statement of
the Offense as a written proIler of evidence by the United States.
penalties, assessments. and restitution: The statutory
that the Cour can impose for a violation of
Title IS, United States Code, Section 371, is a fine of
$500,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offense, whichever is greatest, l8
Case 1:10-cr-00065-RJL Document 3-1 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 39
U.S.C. § 3571(c)(3) and (d); five years' probation, 18 U.S.C § 3561(c)(1); and a mandatory special
assessmentof$400, 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(B). The statutorymaximum sentence thatthe Court
impose for a violation ofTitlt 15, United States Code, Section 78dd-3, is a fine of $2,000,000, 15
U.S.c. § 78dd-3(e), or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offense, whichever is
greatest, 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d); fiveyears' probation, 18 US.C § 3561(c)(I); and
assessment of $400, 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(B). The statutory maximum sentences for multiple
counts can be aggregated and TUn consecutively. Restitution obligations, if any, are satisfied in light
the Judgment being entered in the companion case of
v. Daimler AG and that probation is not necessaryin light ofETF' s acceptance and acknowledgment
of the monitorship provisions in the deferred prosecution agreement entered into simultaneously
herewith by the Deparment and Daimler, ETF's parent.
4. Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The parties agree that pursuant to United States
v. Booker, 543 US. 220 (2005), the Court must determine an advisory sentencing guideline range
pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG" or "Sentencing Guidelines"). The
Court wil then determne a reasonable sentence within the statutory range after considering the
adviory sentencing guideline range and the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The
that for puroses of determining an advisory sentencing guideline range, the 2006 Sentencing
Case 1:10-cr-00065-RJL Document 3-1 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 39
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd noteLikeEmbedShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads|over 3 years ago1 thousand reads|6 months ago1 thousand reads|6 months agoLoad more
RecommendedBazzetta v. Daimler AG - Ds Reply in ...The Russia MonitorSEC v. Daimler AG - JudgmentThe Russia MonitorBazzetta v. Daimler AG - Amended Comp...The Russia MonitorBazzetta v. Daimler AG - Ps Response ...The Russia MonitorUS v. Daimler AG - DPAThe Russia MonitorSEC v. Daimler AG - Consent and Under...The Russia MonitorDaimler Subsidiary ListThe Russia MonitorBazzetta v. Daimler AG - Ds Answer to...The Russia MonitorU.S. v. DaimlerChrysler Russia - Info...The Russia MonitorCriminal Information filed against DaimlerChrysler Russia on March 22, 2010.U.S. v. DaimlerChrysler China - Infor...The Russia MonitorPrevious|NextPage 1 of 3