Once a person has reached an agreement, it is very difficult to limit the extent of that person`s liability for the actions of others involved in the conspiracy. Under U.S. federal law, members of a conspiracy may be guilty not only of the crime of conspiracy itself, but also of other unknown crimes committed by other members of the support conspiracy. Many U.S. states, influenced by the model criminal code, have passed laws that do not make one by conspiracy. In accordance with Section 73 of SOCPA, a sentencing reduction agreement can be used to assist an offender. In the case of a socpa agreement to provide evidence, there may be exceptional circumstances in which a written agreement should be signed after the clean-up, but before fully informing it with caution, for example. B, if it appears that the offender will not participate fully in the rejection interview until after an agreement has been signed or if it may be inetractive to access the offender in a discreet and safe environment. , according to the letter of det, for the purposes of signing the agreement. However, in these circumstances, the Prosecutor must carefully consider whether the SOCPA procedure should proceed, since failure to clean up the potential offender at this stage may affect their credibility as a witness in subsequent criminal proceedings following the disclosure of the SOCPA procedure. Disclosure of Section 73 agreements is most likely a problem when the aid writer is invited to testify. When a support offender testifies under an agreement, the fact that he or she has signed such an agreement is almost always thoughtless as a case that could undermine prosecution. This is because it is an inducement or benefit to the witness, since the agreement is implicitly entered into with the intention of avoiding prosecution (sections 71 and 72), i.e.

to seek a reduction in the sentence (sections 73 and 74). Disclosure problems may also arise if the offender is not called as a witness. Prosecutors should be aware that there is potential to record information from individuals in different locations (for example. B Secret Service reports, chi protocols) and, therefore, treat them in the usual way. Until now, our discussion has focused on the fundamentals of the conspiracy crime in which a person has entered into an agreement to commit a crime with another person. However, some questions arise when many people are involved in a conspiracy or when many crimes are agreed. If there is only one agreement between the parties, there is usually only one conspiracy, regardless of the number of crimes the conspirators intend to commit. See Doolin v.

State, 650 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1995). For example, the accused may be convicted of conspiracy, even if his co-conspirators are never arrested and brought to justice. As long as the prosecutor can prove that there was an agreement between the accused and the other party, the conviction will be upheld. Example: an SOCPA agreement could prevent the forfeiture of proceeds of crime after a conviction or recovery under Part 5 of the POCA. An agreement under Section 73 SOCPA should not contain a condition that avoids forfeiture or civil forfeiture, as this would be comparable to the Crown`s evidence. The desire to avoid forfeiture through cooperation may be a strong incentive for some offenders, but this may significantly diminish their credibility as witnesses by offering considerable benefits in exchange for their testimony. Regularly allowing criminals to retain the benefits of their criminal activities in exchange for cooperation with the Crown would also undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

It is also questionable whether it would be useful to serve the agreement. If the content of the agreement does not go further than the cases on which the offender is to testify in court, it could be argued that the agreement is not sensitive because it does not contain information that is not public on the air