U.S. May Drop Guilty Plea Deal With Boeing Over Deadly Max Crashes, Lawyers Say

New York Times

16-05-2025

Federal prosecutors are considering abandoning a deal in which Boeing would plead guilty to a felony charge related to a pair of fatal crashes involving its 737 Max plane, according to lawyers for the families of some of the 346 crash victims.
The lawyers said that they and the families were informed by Justice Department officials in a call on Friday about the reversal. During the call, Justice Department officials said that they were considering reaching a non-prosecution agreement with Boeing instead, the family lawyers said.
'While D.O.J. claims no final decision has been made, their scripted presentation made it clear that the outcome has already been decided,' Erin R. Applebaum, a lawyer at Kreindler & Kreindler, a firm that represents 34 families who lost loved ones in one of the crashes, said in a statement. 'This isn't justice. It's a backroom deal dressed up as a legal proceeding, and it sends a dangerous message: In America, the rich and powerful can buy their way out of accountability.'
The Justice Department and Boeing did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A decision to reach a non-prosecution agreement would represent the latest about-face in a yearslong effort to hold Boeing accountable for two of the deadliest plane crashes in recent history.
Last summer, prosecutors and Boeing had reached a deal in which the company agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the federal government. But that agreement has been under renegotiation in recent months, and Justice Department officials told families that Boeing has refused to plead guilty.
Under a non-prosecution agreement, prosecutors agree not to pursue charges in exchange for some concessions. The officials told the families on Friday that they believed this kind of agreement was the best course of action, with other options including going to trial, which they said would be risky.
The officials said that the framework for such an agreement would include Boeing paying about $445 million to a crash victims' fund, investing heavily in compliance and safety and agreeing to oversight by an 'independent compliance consultant,' according to Paul Cassell, a lawyer for many of the families in the case and a professor of criminal law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah.
Mr. Cassell added that if the department proceeded with its plans, the families would 'strenuously object' and ask the judge to throw out the deal.
The crashes occurred in Indonesia and Ethiopia in 2018 and 2019 and have been blamed on changes Boeing made to flight control software on the 737 Max. There was a global ban on flying the Max for almost two years, which started to unwind in late 2020. Boeing endured months of intense scrutiny from authorities around the world, deep reputational scars, and huge financial costs. It has reached settlements with some of the families of victims of the crash, but some are still pursuing legal action against the company.
'This isn't about money,' Chris Moore, whose 24-year-old daughter Danielle died in one of the crashes, said in a statement. 'You have no humanity. It's about justice.'
The Justice Department case has taken several sharp turns. In a settlement in 2021 — during the final days of the first Trump administration — the department struck a deal with Boeing to dismiss criminal charges, provided that the company comply with the terms of a three-year agreement.
Last year, under former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Justice Department determined that Boeing had violated that agreement, allowing it to revisit charging the company. In July, the two sides reached a new deal, one in which Boeing would plead guilty to a charge. As part of that deal, the company also agreed to pay a nearly $500 million fine, make a big investment in compliance and safety and be overseen by a compliance monitor independent of the Federal Aviation Administration.
The victims' families said the deal did not go far enough. And late last year, the judge overseeing the case took issue with some details of the agreement, including a provision that required diversity to be a consideration in the appointment of the monitor.