# United States v. HSBC Bank USA > [!note] Stub > This is a short entry that hasn't been fully written yet. 863 F.3d 125 (2d Cir., decided **12 July 2017**) — the companion holding to [[United States v. Fokker Services]], and the decision that put a monitor's findings beyond public reach. Under a deferred prosecution agreement arising from anti-money-laundering and sanctions failures, a district court had invoked its supervisory power to oversee the agreement's implementation and had moved toward unsealing the independent monitor's report. The Second Circuit reversed on both points, holding that the district court "erred in sua sponte invoking its supervisory power" absent "a showing of impropriety," and that "the Monitor's Report is not a judicial document because it is not now relevant to the performance of the judicial function." The court declined to read [[Speedy Trial Act]] § 3161(h)(2) as conferring "an ongoing oversight power over the government's entry into or implementation of a DPA," and described the court's role as "limited to arraigning the defendant, granting a speedy trial waiver if the DPA does not represent an improper attempt to circumvent the speedy trial clock, and adjudicating motions or disputes as they arise." Not to be confused with the bank's British parent group, [[HSBC]]. Mapped in [[Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreement Crosswalk]]. ## See also - [[United States v. Fokker Services]] · [[Deferred Prosecution Agreement]] · [[Compliance Monitor]] - [[Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreement Crosswalk]] · [[Speedy Trial Act]] - [[HSBC]] · [[Prosecutorial Discretion]] · [[Elite Impunity]] · [[Judiciary Hub]]