Federal Criminal Defense Blog : Georgia Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Gillen Withers & Lake Law Firm : White Collar Crime, RICO, Trial : Atlanta, Savannah, GA

On June 24, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling. The majority in U.S. v. Skilling, No. 08-2349, in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (which may be read in its 114 page entirety here), held that the "honest services" mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346, applies to bribery and kickback schemes, and not to mere "undisclosed self-dealing by a public official or private employee," alone. The majority held that Skilling did not violate §1346 since, although the Government charged Skilling with conspiring to de-fraud Enron’s shareholders by misrepresenting the company’s financial health and therefore profiting, the government never alleged that Skilling solicited or accepted any payments from third parties in exchange for making the misrepresentations.

The recent Skilling decision is already having an impact on federal prosecutions. As reported by Law.com, this week, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the parties in the prosecution of Kevin Ring, a former associate of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, that the Court would grant Ring more time to file a motion for judgment of acquittal in light of Skilling. Ring was charged with bribery and tried last year, however the trial ended in a hung jury. The Court intentionally delayed Ring's retrial to await the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling and the cases of Black v. U.S. and Weyhrauch v. U.S. The prosecution has announced its intent to push forward with a second trial of Ring.

In Georgia news, attorney M. Dewey Bain, of Sugar Hill, Georgia, was sentenced to 5 years and 3 months imprisonment today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for defrauding clients--including a 97 year-old woman--out of $4.3 million, as reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Bain entered into trust agreements with clients in which Bain falsely promised he would invest their monies in safe accounts, but instead fraudulently diverted the monies to his own personal use.

In Southeastern news, Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V.--yes, that Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V.--has agreed to pay $240 million in penalties to the government for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for allegedly bribing officials in Nigeria to obtain engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria, according to an FBI press release. Snamprogetti is a Dutch corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Snamprogetti S.p.A., an Italian corporation. Snamprogetti was alleged, along with Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. (KBR), Technip S.A. (Technip), and a Japanese engineering and construction company to have engaged in a joint venture that was awarded four EPC contracts by Nigeria LNG Ltd. (NLNG), between 1995 and 2004 to build LNG facilities on Bonny Island. Snamprogetti allegedly caused the venture to hire two agents, Jeffrey Tesler and a Japanese trading company, to pay approximately $172 million in bribes to Nigerian officials. The deferred prosecution agreement was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Snamprogetti also reached a settlement of a related civil action by the SEC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog,  Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, and Professor Ellen S. Podgor of Stetson University College of Law and the White Collar Crime Prof Blog, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed more interested in the jury selection/fair trial issues in yesterday's oral arguments in the case of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, Skilling v. U.S., Case No. 08-1394 then it did in the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 1346, the federal honest services fraud statute. The transcript of the oral argument may be read here. After lengthy questioning regarding the jury selection at Skilling's trial by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and others, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., raised the question of honest services. Skilling's counsel, Sri Srinivasan, appeared to have adopted the strategy of arguing for a new trial based upon juror bias relating to the Enron scandal rather than a reversal of Skilling's convictions for honest services fraud. Srinivasan argued that the Department of Justice was interpreting the law broadly enough to reach virtually any falsehood told by an employee.

Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben argued for the government. Dreeben argued ways in which the Court could interpret the honest services fraud statute in order to avoid holding it unconstitutionally vague. Justice Anthony Kennedy stated to Dreeben that it was Congress' job to rewrite the statute and Justice Antonin Scalia remarked on the excessive scope of the statute.

The Court's decision in the case is expected this spring or summer. The parties' arguments regarding honest services fraud largely mirrored the arguments in the two other challenges to 1346 which the Court had heard this term. Commentators have opined that 1346 may not survive without being sent to Congress for reshaping.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As noted by Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of U.S. v. Skilling on Monday at 1 p.m., Eastern Time. The central issue to be argued to the Court is whether the federal honest services fraud statute, 18 United States Code 1346, is "unconstitutionally vague." Mr. Jones rounds up commentary from around the blogosphere on the case.

As noted by Mr. Jones, the honest services fraud statute, Section 846, criminalizes the deprivation of another of the "intangible right to honest services." Congress enacted Section 846 22 years ago following the Supreme Court's decision in McNally v. U.S, which had ended prosecution for honest services as a part of mail or wire fraud. The problem is that Section 846 does not define "honest services." The honest services provision is a favorite of prosecutors, especially in cases where deprivation of money or property, as required in traditional mail or wire fraud cases, may be difficult to establish.

Jeff Skilling is the former Chief Executive Officer of Enron Corporation, which crashed into sudden bankruptcy in 2001. Skilling, former CEO Kenneth Lay and others were charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, making false statements to auditors and insider trading. In May of 2006, Skilling was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and the jury found him guilty on 19 counts. The District Court sentenced him to 292 months imprisonment and ordered him to pay $45 million in restitution.

Skilling appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the government used an invalid theory of "honest services" fraud to convict him. The indictment alleged that Skilling conspired with others to, among other things, deprive Enron and its shareholders of the right to the honest services owed by its employees. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Skilling's honest services fraud conviction, noting that it had created an exception to the honest services fraud statute in the related Enron case of U.S. v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509 (5th Cir.2006) where an employer creates a goal, aligns employees' interests to achieve the goal and higher-level management sanction improper conduct to reach the goal. However, the Fifth Circuit held that Skilling's conduct had not been sanctioned by the corporation.

Skilling has appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that lower rulings on the honest services fraud statute have been “a hodgepodge of oft-conflicting holdings, statements, and dicta” that “only the most discriminating lawyer or judge” could understand. Attorney Sri Srinivasan of O’Melveny & Myers will argue on Skilling's behalf before the Court.

Another case calling into question the constitutionality of Section 1346 is the case of newspaper magnate Conrad Black. The Court heard oral arguments in Black's case last December.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The attorneys who have assisted shareholders and investors in recovering for their losses in the wake of the prosecution and demise of Enron will receive a handsome reward for their labors-$688 million in legal fees, the largest amount ever earned in a case in U.S. history. The settlement is part of a $40 billion lawsuit by investors alleging that Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup participated in the accounting fraud which led to Enron's collapse.

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins had the fee approved yesterday. The court stated that the fee was reasonable and was earned by "an extraordinary group of attorneys."

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins and others helped investors recoup $7.2 billion, mostly from Enron's former banks. Approximately 1.5 million individuals and institutions will be eligible to share in the distribution under the settlement plan. The plan will pay about $6.79 per share of common stock and $168.50 per share of preferred stock to investors or shareholders who purchased Enron-related securities between 1997 and 2001.

Several financial institutions, including Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston and Barclays Bank, have not yet entered a settlement and remain defendants in the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link