10 Principles Of Economic

[Ling Baus]

Thissimple but not simplistic video by Ray Dalio, Founder of Bridgewater Associates, shows the basic driving forces behind the economy, and explains why economic cycles occur by breaking down concepts such as credit, interest rates, leveraging and deleveraging.

Ray joins Michael Moritz to discuss five centuries of economic history to better understand current events. They cover the historical role of banking institutions in dealing with debt, rising internal and external conflicts, and the role of knowledge and technology.

China is at the top of that list. For years, China has grown in force and strength, persistently engaging in coercive economic policies to further its interests and undermine those of the United States and our allies.

We must boost economic growth and competitiveness through a renewed commitment to free enterprise, free trade, rule of law, and international U.S. leadership. And we must maintain our technological edge, promote capital formation, and ensure supply chain resilience.

Through a Request for Information in the Federal Register, the Department is seeking public input on the draft Business Diversity Principles, which describe best practices related to promoting equity and economic development. The Department intends for the Principles to serve as the first step in a longer term effort to convene private sector Business Diversity leaders, amplify existing efforts, and inspire additional, voluntary Business Diversity efforts.

Workforce Development: Cultivate and maintain a diverse talent pipeline by partnering with educational institutions and community organizations and allocating resources for workforce development initiatives and accommodations. Remove barriers to entry, using demographic data to understand workforce composition, identify gaps, and shape organizational strategy. Equip workers, including those from underserved communities, with the necessary skills for advancement.

Human Resources: Prioritize the promotion of internal talent, regularly review promotion data to identify barriers, and provide senior leader sponsors for workers from underserved communities. Establish and maintain employee resource groups for workers from underserved communities. Clearly communicate potential internal career paths and advancement opportunities. Foster work-life balance through HR policies, such as flexible working arrangements, comprehensive parental leave, support for caregivers, and inclusive benefits packages.

Business Opportunities: Create an inclusive supply chain that expands opportunities for entrepreneurs from underserved communities at all levels, from food service to construction to financial and consulting services. Invest in mentorship and training programs that help companies navigate industry challenges, build capacity for procurement opportunities, and enhance skill sets. Facilitate access to capital for companies through strategic partnerships and other innovative approaches. Provide networking opportunities for entrepreneurs from underserved communities and encourage recognized certifications to enhance visibility and credibility. Implement inclusive request-for-proposal processes that eliminate barriers and ensure transparency and accountability.

The prosecution of corporate crime is a high priority for the Department of Justice. By investigating allegations of wrongdoing and bringing charges where appropriate for criminal misconduct, the Department promotes critical public interests. These interests include, among other things: (1) protecting the integrity of our economy and capital markets by enforcing the rule of law; (2) protecting consumers, investors, and business entities against bad actors that gain unfair advantage or cause economic harm by violating the law; (3) preventing violations of environmental and worker safety laws; and (4) discouraging business practices that would permit or promote unlawful conduct at the expense of the public interest.

Prosecutors should focus on wrongdoing by individuals from the very beginning of any investigation of corporate misconduct. By focusing on building cases against individual wrongdoers, the Department accomplishes multiple goals. First, the Department increases its ability to identify the full extent of corporate misconduct. Because a corporation only acts through individuals, investigating the conduct of individuals is the most efficient and effective way to determine the facts and the extent of any corporate misconduct. Second, by focusing on individuals, the Department increases the likelihood that those with knowledge of the corporate misconduct will be identified and provide information about the individuals involved, at any level of an organization. Third, the Department maximizes the likelihood that the criminal investigation appropriately identifies and holds accountable culpable individuals and not just the corporation.

These Principles provide internal Department of Justice guidance. They are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful investigative and litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice.

A. General Principle: Corporations should not be treated leniently because of their artificial nature nor should they be subject to harsher treatment. Vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws against corporate wrongdoers, where appropriate, results in great benefits for law enforcement and the public, particularly in the area of white collar crime. Holding corporations accountable for wrongdoing enables the government to be a force for positive change of corporate culture, and a force to prevent, discover, and punish serious crimes.

In certain instances, it may be appropriate to resolve a corporate criminal case by means other than an indictment or pre-indictment guilty plea. Non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements, for example, occupy an important middle ground between declining prosecution and obtaining the conviction of a corporation. These agreements are discussed further in JM 9-28.1100 (Collateral Consequences). Likewise, civil and regulatory alternatives may be appropriate in certain cases, as discussed in JM 9-28.1200 (Civil or Regulatory Alternatives).

[1] While these guidelines refer to corporations, they apply to the consideration of the prosecution of all types of business organizations, including partnerships, sole proprietorships, government entities, and unincorporated associations.

A. General Principle: Prosecution of a corporation is not a substitute for the prosecution of criminally culpable individuals within or outside the corporation. Because a corporation can act only through individuals, holding individual wrongdoers criminally liable may provide the strongest deterrent against future corporate wrongdoing. Provable individual criminal charges should be pursued, particularly if they implicate high-level corporate officers, even in the face of an offer of a corporate guilty plea or some other disposition of the charges against the corporation, including a deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreement, or a civil resolution. In other words, regardless of the ultimate corporate disposition, a separate evaluation must be made with respect to potentially liable individuals.

If an investigation of individual misconduct has not concluded by the time authorization is sought to resolve the case against the corporation, or prosecution against individuals is not viable for other reasons, prosecutors must submit to the supervising United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General a prosecution or resolution authorization memorandum that addresses the potential liability of individuals, a description of the current status of the investigation regarding their conduct and the investigative work that remains to be done, and, whenever warranted, an investigative plan to bring the matter to resolution expeditiously and prior to the end of any statute of limitations period. In such cases, prosecutors must obtain the approval of the supervising United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General of both the corporate resolution and the memorandum addressing the investigation of responsible individuals and why it is not resolving before or concurrently with the corporate case.

B. Comment: The factors listed in this section are intended to be illustrative of those that should be evaluated and are not an exhaustive list of potentially relevant considerations. Some of these factors may not apply to specific cases, and in some cases one factor may override all others. For example, the nature and seriousness of the offense may be sufficiently aggravating to warrant prosecution regardless of the other factors. In most cases, however, no single factor will be dispositive. In addition, national law enforcement policies in various enforcement areas may require that more or less weight be given to certain of these factors than to others. Of course, prosecutors must exercise their thoughtful and pragmatic judgment in applying and balancing these factors, so as to achieve a fair and just outcome and promote respect for the law.

A. General Principle: The nature and seriousness of the crime, including the risk of harm to the public from the criminal misconduct, are obviously primary factors in determining whether to charge a corporation. In addition, corporate conduct, particularly that of national and multi-national corporations, necessarily intersects with federal economic, tax, and criminal law enforcement policies. In applying these Principles, prosecutors must consider the practices and policies of the appropriate Division of the Department, and must comply with those policies to the extent required by the facts presented.

B. Comment: In determining whether to charge a corporation, prosecutors should take into account federal law enforcement priorities as discussed above and consult with the Criminal, Antitrust, Tax, Environmental and Natural Resources, and National Security Divisions, as appropriate. Specifically, prosecutors must be aware of the specific policy goals and incentive programs established by the respective Divisions and regulatory agencies.

3a8082e126