Black behind the 8-ball? Your prediction ...

[Figleaf]

Tune in next week!

[eXploiTeD]

I'm extremely skeptical of the possibilities of anyone that rich getting convicted.

[BC_chick]

And the plot thickens:

Judge hands Black's case serious blow

Mary Vallis, CanWest News Service

Published: Friday, June 15, 2007

CHICAGO -- The judge presiding over the Conrad Black trial has ruled the jury will be given the so-called "ostrich instruction," which could make it easier for the case to result in a conviction.

The instruction allows the jury to consider whether Black and his co-defendants deliberately avoided knowledge about the alleged crimes at Hollinger International Inc., like the myth an ostrich hides its head in the sand to avoid danger. Also referred to as conscious avoidance, deliberate ignorance or willful blindness, the instruction was used in the WorldCom Inc. and Enron Corp. fraud cases, which both resulted in convictions.

Yesterday, Judge Amy St. Eve said there is "sufficient evidence" for the jury to be given the ostrich instruction.

Legal analysts said the ruling is a significant blow for the defence.

"Defendants are sophisticated businessmen with extensive training and experience in corporate governance that should have caused them to make inquiries about the propriety of these payments -- and yet they stood silent," the prosecution said.

[geoffrey]

That's a little ridiculous. Fraud consists of a deliberate intent to deceive, not negligence.

If we are saying that the exec's were negligent in insuring corporate gov standards were met, then sure, I'd likely agree if I took a real good look at it. But that's not a criminal matter.

The private dealings of shareholders and the execs should be fought out in civil court.

There was never any fraud.

[BC_chick]

That's a little ridiculous. Fraud consists of a deliberate intent to deceive, not negligence.

If we are saying that the exec's were negligent in insuring corporate gov standards were met, then sure, I'd likely agree if I took a real good look at it. But that's not a criminal matter.

The private dealings of shareholders and the execs should be fought out in civil court.

There was never any fraud.

What does GAAP say about the ethics of these men's behaviour with shareholders' money? I don't know if you have your designation or not, but if you were the CFO of Hollinger Inc. and you knew what these men were doing, would you or would you not have an ethical dilemma on your hands?

If you agree that their actions were unethical, then please explain where ethics fit in to accounting....

[sharkman]

I'm extremely skeptical of the possibilities of anyone that rich getting convicted.

Ever hear of Martha Stewart? How about Paris Hilton? Mind you these two were ramrodded by bitter petty judges who couldn't resist the temptation to stick it to the rich (wo)man. Whether Black gets off or not has nothing to do with justice.

[Mad_Michael]

As far as I understand, this is only 'round one' for Black.

Black chose the one jurisdiction with the least amount of serious charges against him. He's hoping an aquital in the USA might help him dodge the more serious charges in Britain and Canada.

The chances of Black going 3 for 3 are mightly slim.

[Mad_Michael]

The private dealings of shareholders and the execs should be fought out in civil court.

If Black stole property from the shareholders, that is a matter for criminal court.

There was never any fraud.

I can see you are approaching the topic with an open mind, awaiting the ruling of the courts.