|

Fraud
Files: Enron's Jeffrey Skilling Says
We Shouldn't Expect Honest Execs
By Tracy Coenen
Daily Finance
March 7, 2010
Last week, the poster boy
for executives committing fraud, Jeffrey Skilling, had his appeal of
his criminal conviction heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Skilling was convicted in 2006 on 19 counts of conspiracy, fraud,
false statements and insider trading related to his work as the CEO
of failed energy concern Enron. But even at sentencing,
Skilling claimed he was innocent of
all charges and Enron collapsed because of
outside forces. (That still gives me a chuckle each time I read it.)
He'll be locked up for the next couple of decades and probably has
nothing better to do than think about all the ways he can get out of
prison early. And really, what does he have to lose by coming up
with creative arguments to reduce his punishment?
Part of the argument his attorneys made in his appeal revolved
around the
inclusion of a juror who said she
had lost $50,000 to $60,000 because of Enron's collapse.
Can a juror who is essentially a victim of the crime Skilling is
accused of committing be impartial? The defense tried to strike that
juror, but she remained on the panel, raising questions about the
impartiality of the jury.
Is Dishonesty at Work A Crime?
The more interesting issue that was raised, however, was the use of
a law that makes it a crime to deprive someone of the right to
honest services. Skilling's lawyers say this is unconstitutionally
vague as it could literally turn any dishonesty at work into a
federal crime. Yet such a law is important if prosecutors can't
prove actual theft or other crimes, but can prove some sort of
corruption or dishonesty in connection with the jobs of the accused.
Apparently Skilling isn't the only
executive convicted of crimes who thinks it
shouldn't be a crime to be a dishonest executive. Late last year,
media mogul Conrad Black and Alaska
legislator Bruce Weyhrauch appealed their criminal convictions,
saying that the law making it illegal to deprive an employer of the
right to honest services was "inherently vague."
It is hard to feel much pity for Skilling. Law enforcement and the
courts use broad laws all the time to convict people of crimes.
Consider someone believed to be involved in drug dealing. It's not
always possible to prove that crime, so the Feds resort to using
laws regarding tax evasion to convict them of felonies and get them
off the streets. No one seems to mind broad laws in those cases, as
sometimes they're the only way to stop the specific criminal acts,
which are known but unable to be proven in court.
Wholesale Financial Statement Fraud
Skilling's main attorney, Daniel Petrocelli,
wrote in his Supreme Court brief that the law has been used for
"opportunistic and arbitrary prosecutions."
Maybe that argument could go somewhere if Skilling hadn't been so
dishonest and hadn't profited so handsomely from his frauds at
Enron.
We're not talking about a guy who might have been involved in a
little dishonesty as an executive at Enron. Skilling and the
executive team engaged in wholesale financial statement fraud that
propped up the company's stock price substantially. What's more,
Skilling personally profited by unloading his stock while the
company was still flying high and the fraud was undiscovered.
While I'm intrigued by the whole "don't expect me to be honest when
our whole company is dishonest" defense, and it makes for good blog
fodder, it's really all just crap.
Sarbanes-Oxley Hasn't Been Very Effective
This whole issue sounds silly to me. How can a criminal conviction
for blatant dishonesty that created massive personal profits for
Skilling (while simultaneously creating massive personal losses for
thousands of others) be unfair to him? Yet it is not out of the
realm of possibility that the Supreme Court could rule in his favor
on this issue.
I don't believe that fraud can be legislated away. Executives behave
honestly because it is demanded of them by the corporate culture and
the owners of a company.
Regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley are intended to reduce fraud, but
haven't really been proven effective in doing so.
Probably the biggest tangible benefit of Sarbanes-Oxley has been
shining a bright light on the issue of fraud.
However, that doesn't mean that strong laws against dishonesty by
executives shouldn't exist. Those deceiving and manipulating our
financial markets must be penalized. If no other law fits the bill,
I'm more than happy to have lying executives nailed to the wall for
not providing their employers -- and all the stakeholders -- with
honest services.
Tracy L. Coenen, CPA, MBA, CFE, CFF is a fraud examiner and forensic
accountant who investigates corporate fraud and consumers scams, and
is the author of
Essentials of Corporate Fraud
and
Expert Fraud Investigation: A
Step-by-Step Guide.
Senator
Wants Lay's Conviction to Stand
By David Ivanovich
Houston Chronicle
October 20, 2006
WASHINGTON
— Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called on the Justice Department
today to appeal a Houston judge's decision to vacate the late Ken
Lay's fraud and conspiracy convictions.
U.S. District Court Judge
Sim Lake earlier this week wiped out the one-time Enron Corp.
chairman's con-victions because Lay died before his appeals had been
exhausted. Lake's decision followed a precedent set in another case
in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
U.S. Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-Cal.
talks to reporters in 2002
ALEX WONG: AP
Sen. Feinstein, in a
letter to U.S. Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, called on the government to appeal the ruling so
"the govern-ment can fight to preserve Enron victims' hard-fought
right to obtain restitution."
Feinstein argued the Fifth
Circuit's ruling went beyond a doctrine in common law which wipes
out punishments after a defendant's death.
"The Supreme Court has
never held that it also must wipe out a victim's right to
compensatory relief such as restitution," Feinstein wrote.
A Justice Department
spokeswoman could not immediately comment on the letter.
Feinstein, a member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, said she plans to introduce legislation
during Congress' lame duck after the elections to try to address the
circuit court's controversial decision.
Lay died July 5 just weeks
after a jury found him guilty on six charges of fraud and
conspiracy. Lake also found him guilty of four counts of bank fraud.
This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4275807.html

You can also access online
a news release entitled "Senator
Feinstein Calls on Attorney General Gonzales to Appeal Dismissal of
Convictions of Enron's Former Chairman and CEO Ken Lay; Senator
Feinstein also announces intention to introduce legislative fix to
this issue."
Judge Throws
Out Kenneth Lays Conviction
By Kate Murphy
The New York Times
October 18, 2006
HOUSTON — A federal judge
on Tuesday threw out the fraud and conspiracy conviction of
Kenneth L. Lay,
the former Enron executive, who died of heart failure in July while
on vacation in Colorado.
Judge Simeon T. Lake III
ruled that the conviction must be voided because Mr. Lay cannot
pursue an appeal his guilty verdict.
The decision, which had
been expected, prevents the government from trying to seize more
than $43.5 million from Mr. Lay’s estate that prosecutors claimed he
stole from Enron before it collapsed in 2001.
Mr. Lay, who was 64, died
about six weeks after he and another former chief executive,
Jeffrey K. Skilling,
were convicted of spearheading the fraud that led to Enron’s
collapse in December 2001.
"We’re very pleased that
the criminal case against Mr. Lay is now over," said Sam Buffone,
the lawyer who successfully filed the motions to have both Mr. Lay’s
indictment and conviction dismissed. A jury found Mr. Lay guilty in
May of six counts of conspiracy and fraud, and Judge Lake, in a
separate trial, found him guilty of four counts of bank fraud.
Mr. Skilling, who was
convicted of 19 counts of fraud, conspiracy and insider trading, is
scheduled to be sentenced on Monday.
Prosecutors had initially
sought $139.3 million from Mr. Skilling and $43.5 million from Mr.
Lay. But after Mr. Lay’s death, the government moved to force Mr.
Skilling to pay the entire $182.8 million.
Mr. Lay, who before his
trial presented the image of an avuncular philanthropist who played
golf with presidents, was often prickly and argumentative on the
witness stand. He appeared sullen, shook his head dismissively and
slouched in his chair throughout the four-month trial. Even after
his conviction, he maintained that he had not committed any crimes
and that, moreover, Enron was a healthy company brought down by
unfavorable news coverage and the deceit of his chief financial
officer,
Andrew S. Fastow.
In his 13-page decision,
Judge Lake cited established case law that required revocation of
convictions if defendants die without opportunity to appeal. The
Justice Department had asked the judge to delay ruling until
Congress had time to pass legislation that would have retroactively
allowed Mr. Lay’s conviction to stand. But lawmakers recessed before
considering the matter.
Tuesday’s decision will
make it harder for former Enron employees and shareholders to lay
claim to the millions in Mr. Lay’s estate because they cannot point
to his criminal conviction as proof of wrongdoing.
But, David Berg, a defense
lawyer in Houston, said, "The civil suits are going after deeper
pockets like the investment banks" that have been accused of
participating in the fraud.
While many former Enron
employees expressed outrage and Internet blogs seethed that Mr.
Lay’s conviction had been "erased from the books," others were
resigned.
"I’m numb to the whole
thing," said Tina Tennant, who was an executive assistant at Enron
and is part of the class-action lawsuit. "It’s over and it’s really
over now."
[Index
to Articles]
|