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

photosWASHINGTON — 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]

 

A Feast

Take Action

Judicial Accountability | Judicial Independence | Discipline State Court Judges
Appeals-State Court | Disposal of JQC & Other Records | Discipline Federal Court Judges | Appeals -Federal Court | Judicial Canons | Violation of Separation of Powers
History of the Bar | Privatization of the Bar | Unauthorized Appropriation of Funds
The Judicial Bar Rules | Unauthorized Bar Functions | Law is Big Business | Endnotes