» Audit the Federal Reserve

» Breaking up the Banks

» Creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency

» Executive Compensation

Sign Up

To receive regular updates on our campaigns for Financial Reform. 


Recent Reports

July 21 - Dodd-Frank Is Five: And Still Not Allowed Outside the House
July 15 - Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act: Outlining the Need for Increased Revolving-Door and Reverse Revolving-Door Legislation
January 25 - Continued Concerns With HSBC: Giant Bank Has Been Involved in Several Legal Investigations Since Signing Deferred Prosecution Agreement
More - See All Financial Reform Reports

Justice Deferred

The Use of Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreements With Large Financial Institutions In The Age of “Too Big To Jail”

July 8, 2014 - Prior to 2001 the Department of Justice (DOJ) rarely entered into deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements (DPAs and NPAs) with financial institutions in lieu of criminal prosecution. Since then, DPAs and NPAs, which are agreements in which companies may or may not admit to wrongdoing and agree pay fines, have become the DOJ’s preferred tool for white collar criminal law enforcement.

The increasing use of DPAs and NPAs has raised the question of whether the DOJ maintains a “too big to jail” policy which favors banks that, because of their size and systemic importance, cannot be prosecuted for fear of seriously damaging the economy. This report details the DOJ’s increasing reliance on these types of agreements, and concludes that the transition has occurred without complete transparency as to why the agency enters in to agreements with companies rather than pursuing criminal prosecution. The DOJ should publicly disclose if and when it is providing favorable treatment under the law to financial institutions so that Congress can exercise its oversight authority.

Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.