Exhibit 1248 ยท Deferred prosecution agreement
United States v. The Boeing Company, Deferred Prosecution Agreement (N.D. Tex.), filed as Exhibit 10.1 to Boeing Form 8-K
the misconduct was neither pervasive across the organization, nor undertaken by a large number of employees, nor facilitated by senior management
Agreement resolving a one-count conspiracy-to-defraud charge over statements to the FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group about MCAS. Paragraph 4 lists the factors on which the Fraud Section entered the agreement, including its determination on an independent monitor. Attachment A is the Statement of Facts, which Boeing stipulated.
- Source
- U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division Fraud Section and U.S. Attorney's Office, N.D. Texas, with The Boeing Company
- Date
- 7 January 2021
- Quoted from
- DPA para. 4(h)(i) (SEC Exhibit 10.1 copy; printed p. 6)
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/12927/000001292721000003/a202001jan078kexhibit101.htm
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- These are the Fraud Section's stated factors, not a Boeing statement. Same para. 4(h)(ii): 'although two of the Company's 737 MAX Flight Technical Pilots deceived the FAA AEG about MCAS by way of misleading statements, half-truths, and omissions, others in the Company disclosed MCAS's expanded operational scope to different FAA personnel'. Para. 4(f) records prior matters: a 1989 conviction, a 2006 non-prosecution agreement and a 2015 FAA civil settlement. Boeing's own statement of 16 September 2020 on the House report (boeing.mediaroom.com, item 130735) was read and does not say a few individuals were responsible; it says 'We have learned many hard lessons as a company'. Boeing's 20 October 2019 statement (item 130533) refers to a former employee's message and to 'a large number of individuals at both Boeing and the FAA'. LEGAL READ NEEDED. The DPA post-dates the House report by four months.