Supreme Court sets aside convictions of Skilling, Black

[scribblet]

Well, look at this - now what

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2413576220100624

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside some convictions of former Enron Corp Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling and former media baron Conrad Black, a setback for the U.S. Justice Department in some of its biggest corporate fraud prosecutions of the last decade.

U.S.

In the main ruling, the high court limited the reach of a federal fraud law that Justice Department prosecutors have used in a number of cases targeting alleged public corruption by government officials and fraud by corporate executives.

The ruling comes at a time when the administration of President Barack Obama has been under intense pressure to bring some major cases against corporations or top executives stemming from the global financial crisis.

The Obama administration suffered a setback last year when two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers were acquitted of fraud charges. But last week the former chairman of a now-defunct major mortgage lender was charged for allegedly leading a multibillion-dollar fraud scheme.

In the court's unanimous opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law at issue only covered bribery and kickback schemes, and that Skilling's alleged misconduct did not involve a bribe or kickback.

In the other case, the court set aside the convictions of Black and two former colleagues for defrauding shareholders of one-time newspaper publishing giant Hollinger International Inc. That ruling was narrow, based on the jury instructions about the fraud law.

The Supreme Court did not definitely resolve whether the fraud convictions of Skilling and Black should be overturned.

Both Skilling and Black had been convicted on other charges as well, and the justices sent the cases back to lower courts for further proceedings to decide if the convictions must be tossed out completely.

SKILLING'S OTHER CONVICTIONS AN 'OPEN QUESTION'

Ginsburg said that whether the potential reversal of Skilling's conspiracy count touches any of Skilling's other convictions "is an open question."

Skilling as chief executive led Enron's transformation from a sleepy natural gas pipeline company into a global energy trading powerhouse.

Both Skilling and former Enron Chairman Ken Lay were convicted in 2006. Lay later died of a heart attack, and his convictions were set aside because he died before his appeals had been exhausted.

.

Edited June 24, 2010 by scriblett

[Jack Weber]

The Conrad Black thing...I'm not sure about...

Skilling???

Enron was a house of cards that defrauded people out of their pensions and jobs.Skilling,the former CEO of Enron,had to know about this and the fact that he is basically getting another chance based on legalistic semantics is disgusting.

I wonder how the people who lost everything because of this fraud,and his potential "vindication" feel right about now?

[scribblet]

Obviously the prosecutor didn't do his homework, or, there really wasn't anything they could convict on other than obstruction of justice. (removing files)\

The WSJ has something on this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575312512968461310.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

argue laws beget injustice, and in a trio of decisions yesterday the Supreme Court dispensed with major parts of a murky statute that has long been used as a catch-all tool to criminalize business. These are the Court's biggest white-collar crime cases in years and are a long overdue victory for the rule of law.

In a unanimous decision in Skilling v. United States, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the so-called "honest services" fraud law could not be used to convict former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling for his role in the company's accounting scandal. His case will be sent ...

-snip-

The Black and Skilling cases are precisely the kind involving high-profile, unsympathetic defendants in which willful prosecutors like Mr. Fitzgerald are inclined to abuse the honest services law. They know the media won't write about the legal complexities, and they know juries are often inclined to find a rich CEO guilty of something. We regret that in the case of Mr. Black, that failure of media oversight included us.

We agree with Justice Scalia that the Court would have been wiser to toss out the entire honest services statute and force Congress to define precisely the specific behavior it wants to criminalize. But yesterday's decisions are nonetheless a victory against prosecutors who would use vague laws to turn legal if unpopular behavior into crimes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575312512968461310.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Edited June 25, 2010 by scriblett

[bloodyminded]

While certainly an interesting development, for me, it's secondary to a more crucial matter: that non-violent offenders shouldn't be locked up in any case.

I derive no pleasure from defending insufferable, aristocratic little reactionary elitists like Lord Black; but right is right.

[dre]

Not suprising that the law would be full of loopholes for white collar criminals. After all the those people and their lobbiests had a lot to do with drafting those laws in the first place.

Oh well... Thanx god at least Ken Lay is dead. Hopefully skilling will die too... death by ass rape would neato!

[dre]

While certainly an interesting development, for me, it's secondary to a more crucial matter: that non-violent offenders shouldn't be locked up in any case.

I derive no pleasure from defending insufferable, aristocratic little reactionary elitists like Lord Black; but right is right.

While certainly an interesting development, for me, it's secondary to a more crucial matter: that non-violent offenders shouldn't be locked up in any case.

Yes they absolutely SHOULD be locked up.

[bloodyminded]

Yes they absolutely SHOULD be locked up.

I understand it's a point of contention for a lot of people. But clogging prisons with non-violent offenders seems to me a terrible waste of money, and a horrible injustice for criminals who aren't physically dangerous. And it's not the White Collar criminals that are of greatest concern: they have a better chance of escaping jail time as it is, and they aren't by a looong stretch the majority of non-violent offenders in lock-up.

I simply see no good reason to put someone in prison--often mixed in with truly dangerous people--because he stole a car, or committed credit card fraud multiple times, or what have you.

Years of intense probation and plenty of community service--preferably of a remunerative sort, so that the victims could be restituted--sound smore practical, and more in line with a lawful and humane and rational society.

But yes, I understand the idea is actively offensive to some people, and I can understand this enough not to belittle their difference with me on this.

Edited June 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

I understand it's a point of contention for a lot of people. But clogging prisons with non-violent offenders seems to me a terrible waste of money, and a horrible injustice for criminals who aren't physically dangerous. And it's not the White Collar criminals that are of greatest concern: they have a better chance of escaping jail time as it is, and they aren't by a looong stretch the majority of non-violent offenders in lock-up.

I simply see no good reason to put someone in prison--often mixed in with truly dangerous people--because he stole a car, or committed credit card fraud multiple times, or what have you.

Years of intense probation and plenty of community service--preferably of a remunerative sort, so that the victims could be restituted--sound smore practical, and more in line with a lawful and humane and rational society.

But yes, I understand the idea is actively offensive to some people, and I can understand this enough not to belittle their difference with me on this.

Its about the seriousness of the crime. Violent offenses are not the only serious crime. A person who defrauds hundreds of thousands of people out of their lifes savings is a far bigger threat to society than a person that murders a single person.

because he stole a car, or committed credit card fraud multiple times, or what have you.

Depends on the nature of those crimes. Credit card fraud on a large scale has a lot of victims and undermines part of our financial system. Large scale perps are extremely dangerous and worth locking up.

One of the crimes that has always had very large sentences is mail fraud. In many jurrisdictions those convicted can get hundreds of years in prison... the reason for this is that technology allows a criminal to reach a massive ammount of victims simultaneously and compromise a vital societal institution.

I agree that incarceration should only be for SERIOUS crimes but not all serious crimes are violent. In the case of Skilling and Lay they commited crimes against a massive ammount of people, and did a lot more damage than a guy with a gun in a shopping mall could ever hope to do. Plus in addition to financial fraud Enron straight up KILLED lots of people as well.

[bloodyminded]

Its about the seriousness of the crime. Violent offenses are not the only serious crime. A person who defrauds hundreds of thousands of people out of their lifes savings is a far bigger threat to society than a person that murders a single person.

Depends on the nature of those crimes. Credit card fraud on a large scale has a lot of victims and undermines part of our financial system. Large scale perps are extremely dangerous and worth locking up.

One of the crimes that has always had very large sentences is mail fraud. In many jurrisdictions those convicted can get hundreds of years in prison... the reason for this is that technology allows a criminal to reach a massive ammount of victims simultaneously and compromise a vital societal institution.

I agree that incarceration should only be for SERIOUS crimes but not all serious crimes are violent. In the case of Skilling and Lay they commited crimes against a massive ammount of people, and did a lot more damage than a guy with a gun in a shopping mall could ever hope to do. Plus in addition to financial fraud Enron straight up KILLED lots of people as well.

I get your points, and they're really good ones. So let me refine mine a little bit.

Perhaps for the most serious financial crimes, I could soften my view (or harden it, depending on one's perspective). But are most non-violent criminals in prison guilty of crimes as serious as you mention? On the contrary, most are low-income people who have done minor financial damage to somebody: stolen cars, burglarized places with no one present, and so on.

These don't merit prison time, in my view. If anything, not imprisoning them could make it more plausible for them to pay forced restitution to their victims, at least in many cases.

Ultimately, my objection comes down to the profound nature of imprisoning people: it's not some "natural" method of dealing with the anti-social, but rather a choice we make to take away someone's freedom for our own protection. I don't believe we take the responsibility very seriously, either.

But yes, when financial crime does such tremendous damage to other human beings, the consequences should be severe, so I must give you that point.

[dre]

I get your points, and they're really good ones. So let me refine mine a little bit.

Perhaps for the most serious financial crimes, I could soften my view (or harden it, depending on one's perspective). But are most non-violent criminals in prison guilty of crimes as serious as you mention? On the contrary, most are low-income people who have done minor financial damage to somebody: stolen cars, burglarized places with no one present, and so on.

These don't merit prison time, in my view. If anything, not imprisoning them could make it more plausible for them to pay forced restitution to their victims, at least in many cases.

Ultimately, my objection comes down to the profound nature of imprisoning people: it's not some "natural" method of dealing with the anti-social, but rather a choice we make to take away someone's freedom for our own protection. I don't believe we take the responsibility very seriously, either.

But yes, when financial crime does such tremendous damage to other human beings, the consequences should be severe, so I must give you that point.

Well you pretty much ruined the conversation now, by leaving us nothing left to argue about . I agree with all your points. Theres WAY to many non-violent and victimless criminals in prison, and the prison industry has become as much a danger to society as most of the criminals in prison in my opinion.

Edited June 25, 2010 by dre

[bloodyminded]

Well you pretty much ruined the conversation now, by leaving us nothing left to argue about . I agree with all your points. Theres WAY to many non-violent and victimless criminals in prison, and the prison industry has become as much a danger to society as most of the criminals in prison in my opinion.

Ah, we usually end up more or less agreeing, Dre, maybe with a few minor differences on the margins.

You're right about prisons. I get the feeling that some of the "tough-on-crime" folks perceive the U.S. as the proper standard, though it's difficult to imagine why. Many Americans will be the first to point out the the Tough-on-Crime policies have caused more problems than they've solved. No doubt there've been minor improvements in some places (New York is often mentioned), but terrible consequences in others.

Plus (heresy!) the prisoners themselves must be taken into account. Not a terribly popular idea...but prisoners are, incontestably, our responsibility as a society.

If we think of "tough on crime" as a catch-all, across-the-board method of solving the problem of crime, we're in for some unpleasant surprises, in my opinion.