HOUSE OVERSIGHT 012657 IURKLAND 8.. ELLIS Honorable Mice S. Fisher November 28, 2007 Page 2 manner in which the USAO has interpreted the settlement process for these identified individuals under the Agreement requires guidance. These areas are more fully detailed below.* First. Federal criminal investigators and prosecutors should not be in the business of promoting civil lawsuits as a condition precedent to entering non-prosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. This is especially true where the vehicle for the financial settlement under the Agreement requires payment in a lump sum without requiring proof of actual injury or loss — federal authorities should therefore be particularly sensitive to avoid causing a prejudiced and unfair result. 18 U.S.C. § 2255 is a civil statute implanted in the criminal code; in contrast to all other criminal restitution statutes, § 2255 fails to correlate payments to specific injuries or losses. Instead, the statute presumes that victims have sustained damages of at least a minimum lump sum without regard to whether the complainants suffered actual medical, psychological or other forms of individualized harm. We presume that it is for this reason that 18 U.S.C. § 2255 has never before been employed in this manner in connection with a non-prosecution or, as here, a deferred prosecution agreement. In short, the USAO is operating in uncharted territory. Second. 18 U.S.C. § 2255 creates the potential for compromising witness testimony. Although generally the Government may promise or provide traditional consideration to potential witnesses, employing a civil statute that promises a lump sum payment to potential witnesses without proof of actual liability or damage provides an extraordinary incentive that is incompatible with the truth-seeking functions of the criminal justice system. Guidelines or other policy directives should be considered to control the extent to which witnesses are informed by investig