Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-822 (2026)

Effective programs to prevent and detect violations of law; fines

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

13-822. Effective programs to prevent and detect violations of law; fines

A. If based on any evidence or information introduced or submitted to the court before sentencing or on any evidence that was previously heard at trial the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an enterprise had an effective program to prevent and detect violations of law in effect at the time the offense was committed, the court shall set forth on the record its factual findings and the reasons in support of its findings and shall reduce the fine imposed pursuant to section 13-803, if any, by twenty-five per cent.

B. An effective program to prevent and detect violations of law requires at a minimum that the enterprise does the following:

1. Establish compliance standards and procedures to be followed by its employees and other agents that are reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of violations of law.

2. Assign specific high-level personnel within the enterprise overall responsibility to oversee compliance with the standards and procedures.

3. Use due care not to delegate substantial discretionary authority to individuals whom the enterprise knows, or should know through the exercise of due diligence, have a propensity to engage in illegal activities.

4. Take steps to communicate effectively its standards and procedures to all employees and other agents, including requiring participation in training programs or disseminating publications that explain in a practical manner what is required.

5. Take reasonable steps to achieve compliance with its standards, including the use of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect violations of law by its employees and other agents and having in place and publicizing a reporting system where employees and other agents can report violations of law by others within the enterprise without fear of retribution.

6. Consistently enforce the standards through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including, as appropriate, discipline of individuals responsible for the failure to detect a violation.

7. After a violation is detected, take all reasonable steps to respond appropriately to the violation and to prevent further similar violations, including any necessary modifications to its program to prevent and detect violations of law.

C. Relevant factors for determining precise actions necessary for an effective program to prevent and detect violations of law include:

1. The size of the enterprise.

2. The likelihood that certain violations may occur because of the nature of the enterprise's business.

3. The prior history of the enterprise.

D. The failure of an enterprise to incorporate and follow applicable industry practice or the standards called for by any applicable governmental rule weighs against a finding of an effective program to prevent and detect violations of law.

E. An enterprise’s failure to prevent or detect violations of law, by itself, does not mean that the program is not effective if the court finds that the enterprise exercised due diligence in establishing and maintaining its program at the time the acts constituting the offense were committed.

F. This section does not apply if any of the following applies:

1. A high managerial agent of the enterprise, a unit of the enterprise with two hundred or more employees and within which the offense was committed or an individual who is responsible for the administration or enforcement of a program to prevent and detect violations of law participated in, condoned or was wilfully ignorant of the offense.  It is a rebuttable presumption that the enterprise did not have an effective program to prevent and detect violations of law if an individual with substantial supervisory authority participates in an offense.

2. After becoming aware of an offense, the enterprise unreasonably delayed reporting the offense to the appropriate governmental authorities. An enterprise shall report an offense within seventy-two hours.

3. The enterprise wilfully obstructed or impeded, attempted to obstruct or impede or aided, abetted or encouraged the obstruction of justice during the investigation, prosecution or sentencing of the offense or, with knowledge of the offense, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the obstruction or impediment or the attempted obstruction or impediment.

4. If the offense is discovered by the government before disclosure by the enterprise unless, under the circumstances of the offense, no high managerial agent knew or could reasonably have known of the conduct constituting the offense.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1956–1983 · leading case: State v. Cutshaw, 437 P.2d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cutshaw, 437 P.2d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 9× “§ 13-821, of_ [name of complaining wit *213 ness], a child under the age of eighteen, all in violation of A.R.S. § 13-822.” To this information, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for bill of particulars.”
State v. Swafford, 520 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 13× “Is A.R.S. § 13-822 unconstitutionally vague and therefore violative of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law ? 8.”
State v. Hunt, 447 P.2d 896 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 8× “DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO DIRECT A DEFENSE VERDICT BASED ON ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION OF CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OR DEPENDENCY OF A MINOR? The defendant was convicted of "contributing to the delinquency and dependency of a…”
Brockmueller v. State, 340 P.2d 992 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 4× “Appellant appeals from a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a violation of A.R.S. § 13-822. The gist of appellant’s first two assignments of error is the insufficiency of the evidence to show any conduct on his part which constitutes a violation of the…”
State v. Davis, 672 P.2d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “The offense under the current criminal code is identical to the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under the former criminal code provision A.R.S. § 13-822(A). The offense of child molesting is defined in A.”
State v. Romero, 336 P.2d 366 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 6× “Appellant was correct in his contention that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury upon the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (A.R.S. § 13-822), and in submitting to them verdicts on guilty and not guilty of statutory…”
State v. Hunt, 406 P.2d 208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 3× “ELECTION BETWEEN MISDEMEANOR COUNTS Counts Four, Five and Six of the information charged the defendants with violations of A.R.S. §§ 13-822, 13-842 and 13-801, respectively.”
State v. Davis, 672 P.2d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “The offense under the current criminal code is identical to the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under the former criminal code provision A.R.S. § 13-822(A). The offense of child molesting is defined in A.”
State v. Hixson, 492 P.2d 747 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “He contends that A.R.S. § 13-822, when the facts of this case are applied to it, becomes unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.”
State v. Locks, 382 P.2d 241 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 2× “By Statute, A.R.S. § 13-822, subd. A insofar as it is applicable here, “A person who by any act, causes, encourages or contributes to the * * * delinquency of a child * * * or who for any cause is responsible therefor is guilty of a misdemeanor * * “Delinquency” is defined by A.”
State v. Rupp, 586 P.2d 1302 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “§ 13-822. Contributing to delinquency and dependency; punishment; procedure A.”
State v. Carpenter, 405 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2× “Contributory dependency, a misdemeanor (A.R.S. § 13-822 and § 13-821, subsec. A, par.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-822(A) — 3 cases
State v. Davis, 672 P.2d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “The offense under the current criminal code is identical to the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under the former criminal code provision A.R.S. § 13-822(A). The offense of child molesting is defined in A.”
State v. Davis, 672 P.2d 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “The offense under the current criminal code is identical to the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under the former criminal code provision A.R.S. § 13-822(A). The offense of child molesting is defined in A.”
State v. Swafford, 520 P.2d 1151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). “Is A.R.S. § 13-822 unconstitutionally vague and therefore violative of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law ? 8.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.