Skip to main content

Redflex enters into non-prosecution agreement with United States

The Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Ohio (collectively, “DOJ”) have entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., a Phoenix-based automated safety company. The agreement was reached in part due to Redflex’s extensive and thorough cooperation over recent years, which is detailed in the agreement. It included cooperation with the successful prosecutions of several individuals, in
January 4, 2017 Read time: 3 mins
112 Redflex Traffic Systems has entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Ohio (DOJ), due in part to Redflex’s extensive and thorough cooperation over recent years, which is detailed in the agreement.  This included cooperation with the successful prosecutions of several individuals, including a high-ranking city of Chicago official and Redflex’s previous chief executive officer.

Among its obligations under the agreement, which continues for two years, Redflex will pay restitution and compensatory damages to the City of Chicago, the amount of which will be determined either by a final judgment or a settlement agreement in Chicago’s pending civil lawsuit against Redflex.  The company will also pay restitution of US$100,000 to the City of Columbus, Ohio.

Redflex also agreed to cooperate fully with DOJ and any other law enforcement agency designated by DOJ, including the Australian Federal Police and other Australian law enforcement authorities.  As part of that obligation, Redflex must, if requested, provide those authorities with all non-privileged information, documents, records, or other tangible evidence.  In spite of the two-year time period of the agreement, Redflex agreed to cooperate with DOJ, the Australian Federal Police, and other Australian law enforcement authorities until all investigations or prosecutions are concluded.

In exchange, DOJ agreed that it will not criminally prosecute Redflex for any of the conduct arising out of investigations in Chicago and Columbus.  The agreement does not relate to any potential tax charges.

Since the start of the US investigations, Redflex has initiated substantial additions and changes to its compliance program, policies and procedures.  The company agreed in the non-prosecution agreement to revise and address any deficiencies in its compliance code, policies and procedures regarding compliance with applicable anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws.  It agreed to adopt new policies to ensure that it maintains a rigorous anti-bribery and anti-corruption compliance code, and to install procedures designed to detect and deter violations of such laws.

During the term of the agreement, Redflex must prepare at least four follow-up reports and periodically submit them to DOJ.  If the company is found to have violated any provision of the non-prosecution agreement, it will be subject to prosecution for any applicable violation of US law, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Verra completes Redflex buy
    June 18, 2021
    Verra Mobility says acquisition of Redflex Holdings will position it for ITS growth
  • Time for a rethink on road user charging
    February 1, 2012
    There is no value in further US VMT charging trials, except to delay the inevitable. These trials should end after completion of the University of Iowa's National Evaluation of a Mileage-based Road User Charge. There is far greater promise in unleashing private operators to commence profitable, non-tolling services, then using these for toll assessment and collection as fuel distributors are currently used to collect fuel taxation. Bern Grush writes
  • Barcelona pilot for Hayden AI detection system
    March 21, 2025
    Hayden AI is last year's winner of Spanish city's Innova Lab Mobility challenge
  • Drunk driver can sue power company for accident
    August 16, 2013
    The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a drunk driver and her passenger can sue the county and a utility company for a 2005 car crash, overturning a lower court's decision in a case involving a 2005 crash. The Supreme Court ruled that government entities have a duty to ensure roads are reasonably safe for public travel, even if the driver is at fault. The controversial decision means cities, counties and utility companies can be held liable when faulty road designs lead to injuries in car crashes