Canadian Politics Today

ok, I've let you have enough rope now! 

While you go about patting yourself on the back for some feat of cleverness you imagine yourself to have performed, I have to once again point out that you've yet again failed to address the fundamental question of why SNC accepted this plea agreement.

Notwithstanding I've never offered comment on whether there was 'ACase', how are you expecting anyone from the general public to know just 'WhatCase' the PPSC had... or didn't have? As I recall, the only thing I've stated is that legal analysts suggested PPSC might have difficulty in proving... WhateverCaseTheyMightHave! And why? As I stated, because of the datedness of the alleged crimes, the foreign element, the death/absence of many of the key players {allegedly} involved, etc..

Gee, you make it sound like it would have been pretty easy of SNC to beat these charges in court! Why did SNC decide to plead guilty instead of just beating the charges in court?

SNC's lawyers are in a better position to evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case than anybody in the general public, or any outside legal analysts you care to cite.  The fact that SNC opted to plead guilty should tell you what you need to know about the prosecution's case.

what I've also stated, several times, is that the Director of PPSC was quite emphatic in stipulating the key reason behind her decision not to offer a DPA - as she stated, her principal reason for not offering a DPA to SNC-L was due to the, “nature and gravity” of SNC-Lavalin‘s alleged corruption in Libya. That's quite precise... specific... defined! It reads like the PPSC sure envisioned they had TheGoods to support conviction - must have been quite TheCase to render said decision, hey member kimmy?

what you can't answer, what you keep deflecting away from, is the simple question: if PPSC had TheGoods, had TheCase, why did it withdraw all 6 charges of fraud and corruption (3 and 3), and instead had SNC-Lavalin accept a guilty plea on one charge of fraud over $5000? If only you could focus and offer an answer - if only! 

As I said previously, dropping some charges and/or agreeing to a lesser sentence is a common feature of a plea agreement. I'm not sure why this is so mystifying to you.

In the case of SNC, arriving at a sentence that punishes the company while avoiding the dreaded 10-year ban is an outcome that seems in the public interest, much like a sentence that allows an individual offender to serve his time on the weekend while continuing his day job.

Of course, as you're also clearly unaware, a typical key stipulation of DPA's has a defendant admit quilt and assist prosecution in providing all manner of available information to align with and prove/support said guilt!

What further information could SNC provide that would be of value at this point?  Are you proposing that there are yet more "rogue executives" out there that could be tried?

 -k