Legal Definitions - stifling of a prosecution

Stifling of a prosecution refers to an illegal agreement where a person who has grounds to initiate or pursue criminal charges against another individual promises not to do so, or to drop existing charges, in exchange for money, property, or some other valuable benefit. This practice is unlawful because it interferes with the proper administration of justice, allowing private gain to influence public legal processes and potentially shield criminals from accountability.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Retail Theft Settlement

  A convenience store owner catches a customer attempting to steal several expensive items. Instead of reporting the theft to the police, the owner tells the customer that if they pay $500 immediately, the owner will forget the incident and not press any charges. The customer agrees and pays the money.

  Explanation: This scenario illustrates stifling of a prosecution because the store owner, who has the right to initiate a criminal complaint for theft, agrees to abstain from prosecuting the customer in exchange for money ($500). This private agreement undermines the public interest in prosecuting crimes and allows a potential criminal offense to go unreported for personal gain.

• Example 2: Avoiding Assault Charges

  During a heated argument, one person shoves another, causing them to fall and scrape their knee. The injured person threatens to file an assault charge with the police. However, the aggressor offers to pay for all medical expenses and an additional $200 for "distress" if the injured party promises not to report the incident to law enforcement.

  Explanation: Here, the injured party agrees not to pursue criminal charges (assault) in exchange for a benefit (medical expenses plus $200). This private settlement, intended to prevent a criminal prosecution, constitutes stifling of a prosecution because it uses a private payment to prevent a public legal process.

• Example 3: Workplace Embezzlement Cover-up

  A small business owner discovers that an employee has been regularly stealing small amounts of cash from the register over several months. The owner confronts the employee, who admits to the theft. To avoid the hassle and potential negative publicity of a police investigation, the owner makes a deal: if the employee repays all the stolen money, plus an extra 20% as a "fine," the owner will not report the crime to the authorities.

  Explanation: This scenario demonstrates stifling of a prosecution because the business owner, who has clear grounds to initiate criminal proceedings for embezzlement or theft, agrees to abstain from reporting or prosecuting the employee in exchange for a financial benefit (repayment of stolen money plus a penalty). This agreement prioritizes the owner's private interests over the public duty to report and prosecute criminal activity.