What is the difference between criminal and civil enforcement?

Criminal and civil enforcement differ in the legal standard, burden of proof, and penalties assessed. Environmental civil liability is strict; it arises simply through the existence of the environmental violation. It does not take into consideration what the responsible party knew about the law or regulation they violated.

Environmental criminal liability is triggered through some level of intent. As a result of this distinction, most of the environmental crimes that EPA investigates involve “knowing violations” of the law. These are classified as felonies in all the federal environmental statutes except for the toxic substances and pesticide statutes.

In a “knowing violation” the person or company is aware of the facts that create the violation. A conscious and informed action brought about the violation. In contrast, a civil violation may be caused by an accident or mistake.

Examples of “knowing violations” include an intentional decision to dispose or dump pollutants into a river without a permit, or to not install a required air pollution control device.

To be found civilly liable for violating environmental laws the standard of proof is based upon “the preponderance of the evidence.” This means that the evidence presented is convincing and more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is a greater than 50 percent chance that the evidence is true.

The defendant in a civil suit can either be found liable, following a trial, or reach a mutually agreed-upon settlement with the government. The defendant is then required to meet all of the terms of the settlement, but does not have to acknowledge that he violated the law.

Criminal guilt must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is a higher or stricter standard than the civil liability standard. When a criminal defendant pleads guilty or is convicted by a jury, there is no question of legal wrongdoing. He has legally committed the crime.