Conrad Black - Criminal ?

[August1991]

I hope they chuck this arrogant ass in a medium pen for atleast 10 years. I have nothing against innovative, socially responsible people accumulating wealth. Good for them. Conrad is not what I consider to be a "good un'". Rot in jail and take Barb with you.

It is now illegal to be an "arrogant ass"?

Maybe we should include "sheer stupidity" in the Criminal Code too.

[jdobbin]

Conrad paid more taxes in a year than you will your whole life. Without people like Conrad, our economy would be non-existant. Only a true fool would condemn someone to jail solely on their personality. Apparently, that's what happened with this trial.

I pitty Conrad. He's not guilty of anything. It's ridiculous to prosecute someone for success. It's a common trend south of the border.

There are few people who agree with your analysis. Many say that it is a victory for shareholders and for corporate governance.

I don't think too much of Conrad Black's business skills. The only business that he actually created was the National Post and even that was in part absorbing another business namely the Financial Post into the fold.

He was a wheeler and dealer who didn't create that much for shareholders in the long run. He wasn't prosecuted for his success, he was prosecuted for his excess which entailed using Hollinger as his piggy bank.

[August1991]

Conrad paid more taxes in a year than you will your whole life. Without people like Conrad, our economy would be non-existant. Only a true fool would condemn someone to jail solely on their personality. Apparently, that's what happened with this trial.

...

I pitty Conrad. He's not guilty of anything. It's ridiculous to prosecute someone for success. It's a common trend south of the border.

How much Conrad Black paid in taxes is irrelevant to teh question at hand.

Geoffrey, you have the right to say that Black is in fact innocent. But the justice system found otherwise.

Black had his day in court and if I'm not mistaken, he chose to have a trial with jury. His lawyers defended him. In general, the US judicial system tries to minimize the possibility of sending an innocent person to prison even if it means that occasionally the guilty go free.

On that note, I liked Bill Clinton's comment about teh OJ Simpson trial. Simpson was tried in a court and the court found him innocent. IOW, there is a larger question involved here than one single trial.

I can't say that I'm happy to see Black found guilty. I hope that after the initial news reports subside, we won't have to see anymore stories about Palm Beach chandeliers. My fear however is that this will go to appeal and so we may several months (years?) of arcane Black/Amiel stories ahead of us. Beurk.

Edited July 14, 2007 by August1991

[geoffrey]

There were court orders telling him not to move any documents. As soon as he moved the boxes, he was in violation of that court order and obstructing. If he was convicted of nothing else, he would have been found guilty on this account.

The order was given after the documents were moved. Are corporate officers expected to be fortune tellers too?

The bar is being set too high. The documents were returned to authorities upon demand as soon as the order was given. There was never an obstruction of justice. Simply didn't happen.

There are few people who agree with your analysis. Many say that it is a victory for shareholders and for corporate governance.

I don't see how. The shareholders through their appointed Board of Directors approved each and every non-compete payment given to Conrad and the other officers.

The Court found no abuse of company funds by Conrad.

he was prosecuted for his excess which entailed using Hollinger as his piggy bank.

The little confidence I have remaining in the US justice system is that Conrad was acquited on all charges regarding what you mentioned.

I can't say that I'm happy to see Black found guilty. I hope that after the initial news reports subside, we won't have to see anymore stories about Palm Beach chandeliers. My fear however is that this will go to appeal and so we may several months (years?) of arcane Black/Amiel stories ahead of us. Beurk.

The reason that it's interesting to me is purely professional. It's just another exec with a fancy lifestyle so that's why it makes the news.

From a professional perspective, I'm extremely concerned with these types of verdicts becoming the norm. First we have Conrad convicted of not being able to tell the future on the obstruction of justice charge, violating an order that hasn't existed yet (this goes beyond corporate governance IMO, very worrying). Then convicted of mail fraud for sending documents that the jury found to be legitimate.

It's frigtening. If that's the way Americans are playing, your going to find alot less qualified people willing to take the risk of being a corporate officer when they are prosecuted on a whim and more frightenly convicted. It creates a very toxic business environment. I already know of people unwilling to accept the responsibility, the money just isn't worth the legal risk anymore.

People are fearful of going public and fearful of accepting top level jobs in a public company, not because they are criminals, but because of how overboard the US justice system is at convicting people purely on personality and wealth.

Like I said, there was no rationality behind the verdict. It really really frightens me to see that.

This is a very very sad day for corporate governance and the business world IMO.

Edited July 14, 2007 by geoffrey

[jdobbin]

The order was given after the documents were moved. Are corporate officers expected to be fortune tellers too?

The bar is being set too high. The documents were returned to authorities upon demand as soon as the order was given. There was never an obstruction of justice. Simply didn't happen.

I don't see how. The shareholders through their appointed Board of Directors approved each and every non-compete payment given to Conrad and the other officers.

The Court found no abuse of company funds by Conrad.

The little confidence I have remaining in the US justice system is that Conrad was acquited on all charges regarding what you mentioned.

From a professional perspective, I'm extremely concerned with these types of verdicts becoming the norm. First we have Conrad convicted of not being able to tell the future on the obstruction of justice charge, violating an order that hasn't existed yet (this goes beyond corporate governance IMO, very worrying). Then convicted of mail fraud for sending documents that the jury found to be legitimate.

It's frigtening. If that's the way Americans are playing, your going to find alot less qualified people willing to take the risk of being a corporate officer when they are prosecuted on a whim and more frightenly convicted. It creates a very toxic business environment. I already know of people unwilling to accept the responsibility, the money just isn't worth the legal risk anymore.

People are fearful of going public and fearful of accepting top level jobs in a public company, not because they are criminals, but because of how overboard the US justice system is at convicting people purely on personality and wealth.

Like I said, there was no rationality behind the verdict. It really really frightens me to see that.

This is a very very sad day for corporate governance and the business world IMO.

The order was in place before the documents were moved. Justice Colin Campbell put the order in effect while investigations were going on in Canada and the U.S. I have no idea where you got the idea that the order came afterwards.

Please cite where you think it was a court order after that fact.

It was the shareholders who questioned the board and management of not doing their fiduciary duty. Shareholders asked for the investigation in the first place.

You are part of a very small minority who think the Black was not obstructing or taking money that was not due to him. How can one ask for a non-compete clause when you are selling part of the company to yourself? The jury agreed this constituted fraud.

[IXthAmendment]

I hope they chuck this arrogant ass in a medium pen for atleast 10 years. I have nothing against innovative, socially responsible people accumulating wealth. Good for them. Conrad is not what I consider to be a "good un'". Rot in jail and take Barb with you.

Conrad paid more taxes in a year than you will your whole life. Without people like Conrad, our economy would be non-existant. Only a true fool would condemn someone to jail solely on their personality. Apparently, that's what happened with this trial.

You can't be serious. He was convicted of self-dealing, not of having a personality. If CEO's can get away with stealing from shareholders, the whole system of capital markets would be at risk. Business leaders who breach the trust placed in them have no place in this system.

The interesting question now is whether the Conservative government in Canada will find some way to let this non-citizen convict return to Canada in violation of immigration laws.

[KO2]

I hope they chuck this arrogant ass in a medium pen for atleast 10 years. I have nothing against innovative, socially responsible people accumulating wealth. Good for them. Conrad is not what I consider to be a "good un'". Rot in jail and take Barb with you.

Conrad paid more taxes in a year than you will your whole life. Without people like Conrad, our economy would be non-existant. Only a true fool would condemn someone to jail solely on their personality. Apparently, that's what happened with this trial.

You can't be serious. He was convicted of self-dealing, not of having a personality. If CEO's can get away with stealing from shareholders, the whole system of capital markets would be at risk. Business leaders who breach the trust placed in them have no place in this system.

The interesting question now is whether the Conservative government in Canada will find some way to let this non-citizen convict return to Canada in violation of immigration laws.

[KO2]

I gues I forgot to say something.

Jury duty can't be fun

Who's got tricadecaphobia now?

[Michael Bluth]

The order was in place before the documents were moved. Justice Colin Campbell put the order in effect while investigations were going on in Canada and the U.S. I have no idea where you got the idea that the order came afterwards.

Come on Geoff.

It clearly isn't that cut and dried.

Would a judge agree to those charges being laid if Black were as innocent as you claim?

[madmax]

Geoffrey, you would be wise to get off the Conrad Black fan club.

Good business sense.....

...... cut your losses.

[geoffrey]

A Canadian court had ordered that no documents be removed from the building without court permission. In addition, Black was notified on May 19 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was looking for some documents, according to the allegations.

At about 5 p.m. on May 20 - three hours after his assistant was thwarted in an attempt to take some boxes and put them in her car - Black showed up at the office building and helped remove the boxes, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.

Your right. He did remove them without permission. Does it warrant 20 years in jail considering he returned them (documents not really even important in the case) upon demand?

People just love seeing the conviction of those they envy.

No one has explained to me yet how they can rationally be ok with the Jury finding the non-competes and corporate parties to be ok, but sending the non-competes in the mail to be illegal.

[sharkman]

Some very revealing comments from members of the jury have been released in the media, and leave little doubt that the jury wanted to convict Black, and did so in spite of evidence from the star witness, David Radler.

Juror Tina Kadisac, a hair stylist, said the jury had high expectations that the prosecution's key witness, Radler, would give them a slam dunk. She said,"...he didn't give us something where we could go, 'Oh, look there's the story. Everybody's guilty." In other words, they wanted something to agree with their already formed views on the case.

Juror Monica Prince said about Radler,"He was trying to fool the jury." Others said of Radler that he was trying to cover for Black. This was the prosecution's witness, and I may have missed something, but did the prosecution at any point consider him a hostile witness? Perhaps only the jury did, since he couldn't damn Black as they wanted him to.

Edited July 14, 2007 by sharkman

[jdobbin]

Your right. He did remove them without permission. Does it warrant 20 years in jail considering he returned them (documents not really even important in the case) upon demand?

People just love seeing the conviction of those they envy.

No one has explained to me yet how they can rationally be ok with the Jury finding the non-competes and corporate parties to be ok, but sending the non-competes in the mail to be illegal.

I don't know that it will warrant 20 years in jail. It has earned Stewart and Scooter anywhere from six months to two years. Good behaviour or a pardon might see him receive less jail time. He may even serve a less amount of time in Britain.

It is hard to imagine that a man like Black didn't know that what he was doing was obstructing the SEC and the Canadian courts.

As I understand it, the mail charges for non-compete were for a separate charge than the one he was found not guilty on. The mail charge was for a company that Hollinger sold to Radler and Black where Hollinger paid a non-compete sum. The prosecution found that patently fraud and the jury agreed and convicted on that particular sale alone.

Edited July 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Some very revealing comments from members of the jury have been released in the media, and leave little doubt that the jury wanted to convict Black, and did so in spite of evidence from the star witness, David Radler.

Juror Tina Kadisac, a hair stylist, said the jury had high expectations that the prosecution's key witness, Radler, would give them a slam dunk. She said,"...he didn't give us something where we could go, 'Oh, look there's the story. Everybody's guilty." In other words, they wanted something to agree with their already formed views on the case.

Juror Monica Prince said about Radler,"He was trying to fool the jury." Others said of Radler that he was trying to cover for Black. This was the prosecution's witness, and I may have missed something, but did the prosecution at any point consider him a hostile witness? Perhaps only the jury did, since he couldn't damn Black as they wanted him to.

It is probably why the bulk of the charges that were laid Black was acquitted on.

The charge that he was found guilty on of obstruction had nothing to do with Radler and everything to do with Black violating a court order.

The other charges that Black was convicted on had a paper trail and involved the sale of a Hollinger asset to Black and Radler with a non-compete clause. This was the fraud charge that stuck.

Edited July 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[KO2]

There is no doubt now, he's a criminal.

[IXthAmendment]

A Canadian court had ordered that no documents be removed from the building without court permission. In addition, Black was notified on May 19 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was looking for some documents, according to the allegations.

At about 5 p.m. on May 20 - three hours after his assistant was thwarted in an attempt to take some boxes and put them in her car - Black showed up at the office building and helped remove the boxes, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.

Your right. He did remove them without permission. Does it warrant 20 years in jail considering he returned them (documents not really even important in the case) upon demand?

People just love seeing the conviction of those they envy.

He knew he was not supposed to remove the documents, and he did it anyway. I don't know why you're inclined to condone direct violations of court orders, but that is what happened.

The conviction has nothing to do with envy. It's about fraud, by Black against his companies' shareholders.

No one has explained to me yet how they can rationally be ok with the Jury finding the non-competes and corporate parties to be ok, but sending the non-competes in the mail to be illegal.

To convict for mail fraud, it is necessary for the jury to conclude that there was a fraud and that that fraud involved the mail. Use of the mail in furtherance of the fraud is was makes it federal rather than state law. In any event, the fraud is proven as part of the offense.

[scribblet]

Some very revealing comments from members of the jury have been released in the media, and leave little doubt that the jury wanted to convict Black, and did so in spite of evidence from the star witness, David Radler.

Juries can be interviewed and the reasons for their decision can form part of an appeal. One thing that seemed significant to me is that the jurors have said that there was no written record to support the fraud charges. They instead relied on "what he did", or something like that. It appears to me, that a verdict based on ignoring the written record very likely won't stand up on appeal.

From what I've read the non-compete payments were not secret. They were approved by the board and provided to regulators at the time which doesn't seem criminal to me. This is really just a witch hunt because he's rich and arrogant.

[jdobbin]

Juries can be interviewed and the reasons for their decision can form part of an appeal. One thing that seemed significant to me is that the jurors have said that there was no written record to support the fraud charges. They instead relied on "what he did", or something like that. It appears to me, that a verdict based on ignoring the written record very likely won't stand up on appeal.

From what I've read the non-compete payments were not secret. They were approved by the board and provided to regulators at the time which doesn't seem criminal to me. This is really just a witch hunt because he's rich and arrogant.

I have no idea how you came up with that idea. The non-compete payments on the American sale of assets is what all the accused were convicted of. You should go read up on that. There was a written record of that and testimony by witnesses. The jury in interviews believed this was fraud whereas the sale in Canada was not.

I think the appeals will be defeated.

[scribblet]

Juries can be interviewed and the reasons for their decision can form part of an appeal. One thing that seemed significant to me is that the jurors have said that there was no written record to support the fraud charges. They instead relied on "what he did", or something like that. It appears to me, that a verdict based on ignoring the written record very likely won't stand up on appeal.

From what I've read the non-compete payments were not secret. They were approved by the board and provided to regulators at the time which doesn't seem criminal to me. This is really just a witch hunt because he's rich and arrogant.

I have no idea how you came up with that idea. The non-compete payments on the American sale of assets is what all the accused were convicted of. You should go read up on that. There was a written record of that and testimony by witnesses. The jury in interviews believed this was fraud whereas the sale in Canada was not.

I think the appeals will be defeated.

It was part of the testimony http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/04/04/blacktrialapr4.html

Earlier Wednesday, the jury heard testimony that the millions in non-compete payments that went to Black and others were approved by the Hollinger board.

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2007/07...s-saving-grace/

" Mark Kipnis nor anyone else tried to hide anything from Jim the Skim. They didn’t need to. The non-competed were approved -”time and time and time again,” as Safer put it."

[jdobbin]

It was part of the testimony http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/04/04/blacktrialapr4.html

Earlier Wednesday, the jury heard testimony that the millions in non-compete payments that went to Black and others were approved by the Hollinger board.

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2007/07...s-saving-grace/

" Mark Kipnis nor anyone else tried to hide anything from Jim the Skim. They didn’t need to. The non-competed were approved -”time and time and time again,” as Safer put it."

The first link is not the testimony that I was referring to.

Mark Steyn believes the whole case should be tossed. I don't know if he has a point about Kipnis. The prosecution and the jury disagreed.

I still think the case will not be overturned.

[sharkman]

Some very revealing comments from members of the jury have been released in the media, and leave little doubt that the jury wanted to convict Black, and did so in spite of evidence from the star witness, David Radler.

Juries can be interviewed and the reasons for their decision can form part of an appeal. One thing that seemed significant to me is that the jurors have said that there was no written record to support the fraud charges. They instead relied on "what he did", or something like that. It appears to me, that a verdict based on ignoring the written record very likely won't stand up on appeal.

From what I've read the non-compete payments were not secret. They were approved by the board and provided to regulators at the time which doesn't seem criminal to me. This is really just a witch hunt because he's rich and arrogant.

Being rich is a crime of course, and too bad if the evidence is inconclusive. Do appeals on cases like this have juries as well? He stands a better chance someone schooled in the law has the case, like a judge only.

[jdobbin]

Being rich is a crime of course, and too bad if the evidence is inconclusive. Do appeals on cases like this have juries as well? He stands a better chance someone schooled in the law has the case, like a judge only.

His defence team rejected a judge only trial this time around.

[geoffrey]

It is probably why the bulk of the charges that were laid Black was acquitted on.

The charge that he was found guilty on of obstruction had nothing to do with Radler and everything to do with Black violating a court order.

The other charges that Black was convicted on had a paper trail and involved the sale of a Hollinger asset to Black and Radler with a non-compete clause. This was the fraud charge that stuck.

The paper trail is why I don't think it's fraud. The Board of Directors approved the move. Lawyers looked at it before hand. Conrad did his due diligence with the disclosure IMO. If anyone was negligent in their fiduciary duty, it was the Board of Directors.

Your right on the obstruction charge. It looks damning. I'm not really convinced though. Talking to a lawyer about this a bit today, I am under the impression that it was a SEC order that Black violated, not a Court order (the Court order was issued after). He said he didn't know all the details, so he could be misleading me on this one. But violation of an SEC order is not a criminal offense. Do we have a link or something that shows that it was an American Court order that was violated? And why does an American court have any jurisdiction over a British citizen acting in Toronto?

If he violated a Canadian Court order, then ok. Try him in Canada. I'm confused about how a Briton can violate an American order in Canada. It just makes no sense.

He knew he was not supposed to remove the documents, and he did it anyway. I don't know why you're inclined to condone direct violations of court orders, but that is what happened.

Again. If it was an American court order, I say they had no jurisdiction. If it was Canadian, I say the Americans can't convict him on it. And if it was SEC, I say it was not criminal.

The conviction has nothing to do with envy. It's about fraud, by Black against his companies' shareholders.

The shareholders approved every last payment through their elected Board of Directors. Funny that they are complaining now that they fired Black and his replacement ran the company into the ground. Black left a profitable enterprise, remember that.

To convict for mail fraud, it is necessary for the jury to conclude that there was a fraud and that that fraud involved the mail. Use of the mail in furtherance of the fraud is was makes it federal rather than state law. In any event, the fraud is proven as part of the offense.

I now understand that these were all difference offenses. I can see how a jury may convict on mail fraud.

[jdobbin]

The paper trail is why I don't think it's fraud. The Board of Directors approved the move. Lawyers looked at it before hand. Conrad did his due diligence with the disclosure IMO. If anyone was negligent in their fiduciary duty, it was the Board of Directors.

Your right on the obstruction charge. It looks damning. I'm not really convinced though. Talking to a lawyer about this a bit today, I am under the impression that it was a SEC order that Black violated, not a Court order (the Court order was issued after). He said he didn't know all the details, so he could be misleading me on this one. But violation of an SEC order is not a criminal offense. Do we have a link or something that shows that it was an American Court order that was violated? And why does an American court have any jurisdiction over a British citizen acting in Toronto?

If he violated a Canadian Court order, then ok. Try him in Canada. I'm confused about how a Briton can violate an American order in Canada. It just makes no sense.

The court order was made in Canada at the behest of Canadian and American authorities. The link I gave earlier indicates that Black violated that court order. An SEC order has the same power as a court order during an investigation and that too was given before Black went to the Toronto offices.

And once again, on the American sale, Radler included a non-compete clause at the last minute even though it was not requested or even needed since the companies were being sold to Black and Radler. This was considered fraud and that is what he was convicted of.

You could be right that he will win on an appeal. However, the appeal process on such cases is rarely overturned.

[sharkman]

Being rich is a crime of course, and too bad if the evidence is inconclusive. Do appeals on cases like this have juries as well? He stands a better chance someone schooled in the law has the case, like a judge only.

His defence team rejected a judge only trial this time around.

So? I'm guessing you don't know what an appeal case would consist of?