This was a criminal conviction. It says so in the article.

Are you commenting on the disparate sentencing for the company versus an individual?

It is a deferred prosecution agreement, which is definitely an aspect of corporatism: that is the pre -eminent rights of corporations over natural people.

However there was a criminal conviction of a natural person as well. The DPP was the criminal conviction of the corporation that benefited from the underlying crime.

DPPs exist to avoid collateral damage to innocents dependent on the corporation, whilst still criminally convicting the corporation itself. It’s a balancing game.

With it a bit nuanced I am curious to understand better what you meant by your comment.