Non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are the predominate way in which the DOJ resolves Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions against business organizations.
Indeed, as highlighted in this  prior post, since 2010 86% of corporate DOJ FCPA enforcement actions have involved either an NPA or DPA.
Even though U.S. v. Fokker Services is not an FCPA case (it involves criminal charges against the company to unlawfully export U.S. origin goods and services to Iran, Sudan, and Burma) the case has been followed closely here at FCPA Professor because of its potential impact on FCPA enforcement.
As highlighted in this  prior post, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon (D.D.C.) refused to rubber stamp the DPA agreed to by the DOJ and Fokker Services. Judge Leon’s decision is being appealed to the D.C. Circuit and as noted in this  prior post the DOJ’s position is basically “hands off our DPAs.” See here  for additional briefs filed in the matter.
The appeal presents an uncommon situation in which the DOJ and criminal defendant share similar positions – that is, wanting the DPA to be approved so both sides can move on.
Yet as evidenced in the oral argument, the court seems to have serious concerns regarding the substantive and procedural arguments of the parties.