> After three years, if the aerospace giant and defense contractor lived up to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the criminal charge against Boei

> After three years, if the aerospace giant and defense contractor lived up to the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the criminal charge against Boeing would be dismissed and the company would be immune from further prosecution. > The families of those killed in the crashes petitioned the court to reverse the deal, arguing that under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, they should have been consulted and had input into the agreement. The Justice Department initially objected, arguing that it was the FAA, a regulatory agency overseeing airplane certification, that had been defrauded by Boeing, not those killed in the crashes and their survivors. > Judge O'Connor sided with the families this fall, ruling that they legally are crime victims and that their rights were violated under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and they should have been consulted. But he has not yet agreed to reopen the deferred prosecution agreement. So the DOJ cut a deal with Boeing to skip the court system entirely - which I assume was a bit of a win-win for everyone: Boeing didn't have to admit fault, the DOJ didn't have to build a painstaking fraud case without a smoking gun, and victims got restitution without having to wait for a verdict. It seems here the real case is against the DOJ for not pursuing a criminal case in the first place. I also wonder what sort of risk this has to backfire - if Boeing ends up beating the fraud case, or worse, they find executives singularly responsible, does that mean Boeing can claw back their $2 billion payouts to this point? Also, why would anyone ever want to cut a deal with the DOJ again if they have no authority? For the next accident, why not just wait until the court verdict to pay out to victims next time?