Outdated
The claim described an earlier position that has since changed.
An AP report in July 2024 said Boeing would plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and would have a felony conviction.
Boeing agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States
- About
- The Boeing Company
- Claim made by
- Associated Press, press report
- Published
- 8 July 2024
- Evidence score
- 96 How it was scored
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026
Why this label
The report was accurate when published. Boeing had agreed to a plea deal that included a further US$243.6 million fine and an independent monitorS3. On 5 December 2024 Judge Reed O'Connor rejected the deal in a written order that cited the monitor selection process and a diversity and inclusion provisionS4. On 29 May 2025 the government moved to dismiss under a non-prosecution agreementS8. The court granted dismissal on 6 November 2025S9. The Fifth Circuit denied the families' mandamus petitionsS6 and denied rehearing en bancS10. Boeing never entered a guilty plea that was accepted, and it holds no felony conviction in this case.
Current procedural position
Plea agreement rejected on 5 December 2024S4. Case dismissed on 6 November 2025S9. Mandamus petitions denied on 31 March 2026S6, rehearing en banc denied on 22 May 2026S10, mandate issued on 18 June 2026S8.
Record supporting the assessment
For the foregoing reasons, the Court REJECTS the plea agreement (ECF No. 221-1).
Having considered the foregoing, the Government's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
The petitions for writ of mandamus are DENIED.
Conflicting or limiting record
Boeing will have a felony conviction if it follows through on an agreement with prosecutors
Evidence score: 96 of 100
The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of The Boeing Company. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.
| Component | Points | Max | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition? | 29 | 30 | The rejection, dismissal and appeal rulings are read in the court orders themselves. |
| DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts? | 19 | 20 | Each order states its disposition in plain terms. |
| CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point? | 14 | 15 | The district court orders, the Fifth Circuit rulings and the DOJ case page agree. |
| Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes? | 14 | 15 | Rehearing en banc was denied and the mandate issued. No Supreme Court step was found. |
| CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments? | 10 | 10 | Checked against the DOJ case page updated 24 July 2026. |
| ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment? | 10 | 10 | All orders are posted on justice.gov. |
| Total | 96 | 100 |
Timeline
Related cases
- United States v. The Boeing CompanyUS District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Criminal. 4:21-CR-005-O.Stage: Dismissed on the government's motion on 6 November 2025. Crash families' mandamus petitions denied on 31 March 2026, rehearing en banc denied on 22 May 2026, mandate issued on 18 June 2026.
Revision history
- Assessment first published with label Outdated.
Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.
Sources
- S4Tier A Memorandum Opinion and Order, United States v. The Boeing Company, No. 4:21-CR-5-OUS District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Court judgment. 5 December 2024.The court's order rejecting the proposed plea agreement, hosted by the Justice Department. It does not cover the later dismissal.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S9Tier A Order, United States v. The Boeing Company, No. 4:21-cr-5-OUS District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Court judgment. 6 November 2025.The order granting the government's motion to dismiss. It does not state dollar amounts or whether dismissal is with prejudice.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S6Tier A In re Naoise Connolly Ryan, et al., No. 25-11253 c/w No. 25-11254US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Court judgment. 31 March 2026.Per curiam panel opinion denying the families' mandamus petitions. The opinion was later amended on 22 May 2026.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S3Tier C Here's what to know about Boeing agreeing to plead guilty to fraud in 737 Max crashesAssociated Press. Press report. 8 July 2024.Reports the plea deal terms by David Koenig and Alanna Durkin Richer. Its status description was overtaken by the court's later orders.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S8Tier A United States v. The Boeing CompanyUS Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section. Government press release. Last updated 24 July 2026.Case page listing filings and rulings, including the 29 May 2025 non-prosecution agreement and the 18 June 2026 mandate. It summarises rather than decides.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S10Tier A On Petitions for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, In re Naoise Connolly Ryan, et al., No. 25-11253US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Court judgment. 22 May 2026.Order denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, with an amended opinion. It does not address any Supreme Court petition.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
Other claims about The Boeing Company
- Supported90The US Justice Department said in January 2021 that two Boeing 737 MAX Flight Technical Pilots deceived the FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group about MCAS.Regulator statement, 7 January 20214 records citedFraud
- Unresolved65Boeing said in May 2024 that it believed it had honored the terms of its 2021 deferred prosecution agreement, after the Justice Department told the court Boeing had breached it.Company statement, 14 May 20243 records citedFraud
- Supported96Reuters reported in November 2025 that a federal judge approved the Justice Department's request to dismiss the 737 MAX criminal case against Boeing.Press report, 6 November 20254 records citedCorporate status