[dragontamer]

> Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour.

You are mistaken.

Lets say "Alice" is the boss you're after, and Bob is a close associate of Alice, and Bob _MIGHT_ have committed a crime. Nobody knows if Bob is actually a criminal (and indeed, Bob is in that weird grey-zone of the law, skirting legal issues and just barely being legal). You give Bob immunity so that he's more comfortable in testifying in court. "Just in case" his actions constitute a crime. Especially if Bob knows something about Alice (just in case Alice is "The Boss")

Immunity doesn't "entail" criminal behavior. It just entails likely criminal associations (which is NOT a crime). Immunity protection ranges from everywhere from "Completely innocent but they wanted immunity, so might as well give it to them", to "Completely guilty, but getting their testimony will get bigger fish", and everything in between. Its a tool, like any other tool it has proper and improper uses.

[naasking]

But the context here aren't cases where the individuals in question are in a gray area, they're individuals that definitely were accessories to/covered up or participated in criminal activity but then get immunity in order to get the big fish. This is exactly what Huett was describing in the opening paragraphs of this article.