But there are even greater risks in the supply. Almost all makeshift agreements allow the government to use your statements against you for impeachment purposes if you take a position in a subsequent proceeding and testify inconsistently with your offer. And the witness`s version, which is compared to your testimony to see if you should be charged, is the version interpreted and written by government agents. What is even more threatening is that in recent years, many government-developed comised agreements have allowed your statements to be used against you if any part of your defence, including government lawyers under cross-examination, does not match your offer. These widely formulated agreements, which have been systematically upheld at the Federal Court of Justice, may effectively deny you the right to present a defence in court if your expected immunity or oral argument does not pass. What for? Because if part of your defense is considered incompatible with your offer and if that proter involves you in one way or another, the entire promoter will be judged against you. Thus, your lawyer may find himself in the inevitable position of not challenging important parts of the government case, refusing to question certain witnesses and not choosing to put you in the gallery, while dodging to prevent your prejudicial testimony before the jury. Proposals for successful agreements submitted to you for your signatures and your lawyer`s signatures must be carefully considered. As mentioned above, the initial purpose of a goal-scoring encounter was to allow an accused to share a statement about his personal involvement in criminal activities and/or that of others in an off-the-record configuration. In general, the purpose of a proffer meeting was to try to negotiate a criminal solution in a way that fairly characterized the accused`s conduct, or perhaps to obtain the opportunity to attract himself by working with the government in the investigation or prosecution of a case. The government had the opportunity to “anticipate” the accused`s information so that it could assess the veracity and significance of such information before a final plea was concluded. An accused or offender could enter into such an agreement provided that the information provided is “off-the-record” and could not be used directly against him in criminal proceedings. Even the most unilateral provisions of the letters of favour were upheld by some courts in the notice, which rejected the argument that the circumstances that exist in most criminal cases and require clients to negotiate with the government to try to resolve criminal cases that should quash waiver declarations in correspondence contracts.