See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: In Justice Shift, Corporate Deals Replace Trials
Source:
NY Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/w ... slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Published: Apr 9, 2008
Author: ERIC LICHTBLAU
Post Date: 2008-04-09 19:11:31 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 59
Comments: 3
In 2005, federal authorities concluded that a Monsanto consultant had visited the home of an Indonesian official and, with the approval of a senior company executive, handed over an envelope stuffed with hundred-dollar bills. The money was meant as a bribe to win looser environmental regulations for Monsanto’s cotton crops, according to a court document. Monsanto was also caught concealing the bribe with fake invoices. A few years earlier, in the age of Enron, these kinds of charges would probably have resulted in a criminal indictment. Instead, Monsanto was allowed to pay $1 million and avoid criminal prosecution by entering into a monitoring agreement with the Justice Department. In a major shift of policy, the Justice Department, once known for taking down giant corporations, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years. Instead, many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret. Deferred prosecutions have become a favorite tool of the Bush administration. But some legal experts now wonder if the policy shift has led companies, in particular financial institutions now under investigation for their roles in the subprime mortgage debacle, to test the limits of corporate anti-fraud laws. Firms have readily agreed to the deferred prosecutions, said Vikramaditya S. Khanna, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has studied their use, because “clearly it avoids a bigger headache for them.” Some lawyers suggest that companies may be willing to take more risks because they know that, if they are caught, the chances of getting a deferred prosecution are good. “Some companies may bear the risk” of legally questionable business practices if they believe they can cut a deal to defer their prosecution indefinitely, Mr. Khanna said. Legal experts say the tactic may have sent the wrong signal to corporations — the promise, in effect, of a get-out-of-jail-free card. The growing use of deferred prosecutions also suggests one road map the Justice Department might follow in the subprime mortgage investigations. Deferred prosecution agreements, or D.P.A.’s, have become controversial because of a medical supply company’s agreement to pay up to $52 million to the consulting firm of John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, as an outside monitor to avoid criminal prosecution. That agreement has prompted Congressional inquiries and calls for stricter guidelines. Defenders of deferred prosecutions say that they have been too harshly criticized lately and that they play a crucial role in allowing the government to secure the cooperation of a company while avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of a trial. The agreements, government officials say, also avoid the type of companywide havoc seen most acutely in the case of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm that was shuttered in 2002 after being indicted in the Enron scandal. The firm’s collapse threw 28,000 employees out of work. At a Congressional hearing last month, Mr. Ashcroft defended the agreements, saying that they avoided “destroying entire corporations” through criminal indictments. “Prosecutors understand that a corporate indictment can be a corporate death sentence,” he said. “A deferred prosecution can avoid the catastrophic collateral consequences and costs that are associated with corporate conviction.” Paul J. McNulty, a former deputy attorney general who put new guidelines in place in 2006 for corporate investigations at the Justice Department, said in an interview, “There’s a fundamental misapprehension with D.P.A.’s to think that they’re a break for the company.” With the imposition of fines and an outside monitor, “the reality is that for the government, it gets pretty much everything without the difficulty of going forward with an indictment,” said Mr. McNulty, who is now in private practice. “I think companies are beginning to wonder whether they ought to fight more, because they are pretty burdensome.” But critics of the agreements question that assertion. Charles Intriago, a former federal prosecutor in Miami who specializes in money-laundering issues, said that huge penalties, like the $65 million fine for American Express Bank International in 2007, were “peanuts” compared with the damage posed by a criminal conviction. The company was accused of failing to enact internal controls to guard against laundering of drug money and other reporting problems. The agreements were once rare, but their use has skyrocketed in the current administration, with 35 deals last year alone by the Justice Department, lawyers who follow the trend said. Banks, financial service companies and auditors have frequently entered into such agreements, including recent ones involving Merrill Lynch, the Bank of New York, AmSouth Bank, KPMG and others. Beyond financial crimes, deferred agreements have been used in lieu of prosecuting companies — though not individuals — for export control violations, obscenity violations, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, kickbacks and environmental violations. In general, such agreements result in companies acknowledging wrongdoing by not contesting criminal charges, but without formally admitting guilt. Most agreements end after two or three years with the charges permanently dismissed. Monsanto, for example, while not admitting guilt, agreed to abstain from further violations of bribery laws. In an e-mail message, Lori Fisher, a spokeswoman, said that Monsanto had cooperated with the Justice Department and fully complied with the agreement, leading to deferred charges being permanently dismissed in early March. The trend has led to increased speculation about how the Justice Department might use the agreements in investigations against financial companies in the mortgage lending scandal, which has become a top law enforcement priority for the department as the economy has withered. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has 17 open inquiries into accusations of corporate fraud in connection with the subprime scandal, and Neil Power, who leads the bureau’s economics crime unit, said in an interview that the number was certain to grow. The F.B.I. has publicly identified only one target — the Doral Financial Corporation, a mortgage company based in Puerto Rico whose former treasurer has already been indicted — but major companies like Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s biggest mortgage lender, have also been reported to be under criminal investigation. Mr. Power said the investigations were a reflection of the “environment of greed” that allowed companies to package mortgages into securities they sold to investors without sufficient documentation of the borrower’s ability to repay. One line of criminal inquiry focuses on whether bond companies gave accurate information to investors. “What we’re looking at,” he said, “is the fact that they may be performing accounting fraud.” Justice Department officials would not discuss the role that deferred prosecution agreements may play in their ultimate handling of the mortgage investigations. One official said it was “way too early” to begin speculating about such possibilities. But the prospect already has some experts in the field worried. Michael McDonald, a former Internal Revenue Service investigator in Miami who is a private consultant and has given seminars on deferred prosecutions, said such deals “should not be on the board” in the subprime mortgage investigations. “In light of what this did to our economy, people shouldn’t just be able to write a check and walk away,” Mr. McDonald said. “People should be prosecuted for it and go to jail.” Timothy Dickinson, a lawyer in Washington who was the outside monitor for Monsanto, agreed. Corporate lenders caught up in the mortgage scandals should not assume they will be given the chance for a deferred prosecution, Mr. Dickinson said, and the Justice Department should “insist on a guilty plea” rather than offering a deal. “It’s a tool that will remain to be used by prosecutors in appropriate circumstances, but not every circumstance,” he said. “It depends how egregious the conduct is.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
So the homeboy selling pot on the corner gets prison time while the suits get away scott free. And people wonder why I have so much hatred for the United States government.
"Of the corporate elite, by the corporate elite, and for the corporate elite." That's scAmerica nowadays.
#2. To: Hayek Fan (#1)
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#3. To: Hayek Fan (#0) (Edited)
many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret. “In light of what this did to our economy, people shouldn’t just be able to write a check and walk away,” Mr. McDonald said. “People should be prosecuted for it and go to jail.” In light of the fact that most of these people who did this are Jewish, walking away is EXACTLY what they have planned for: ".....Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform. All economic and technological aid to the Communist Bloc, including the PLO, will be terminated immediately. Full support will be given to Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military assistance offered where necessary. Jewish courts (the batei dinim of the rabbis) will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country, who will no longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts. The pre-existing Noachide judges and courts will replace the existing court system of each country, and the legal code will be drastically rewritten to conform to halacha; in the United States, the emphasis will be on restoring the authority of the Constitution and abolishing all unconstitutional government programs and agencies. The national debt will be foreclosed, probably by paying off creditors with government land holdings, thus averting economic disaster. And law and order will be fully restored through the establishment of internal security measures, again in accordance with Torah law....." http://www.cephas-library.com/nw...ts_will_replace_ours.html "Star Chamber [definition] ".... Star Chamber (stär) noun 1. A 15th-century to 17th-century English court consisting of judges who were appointed by the Crown and sat in closed session on cases involving state security. 2. star chamber (stär chAm¹ber). A court or group that engages in secret, harsh, or arbitrary procedures. [So called because the ceiling of the original courtroom was decorated with stars.]''....." UNDER THE NOAHIDE LAWS watch.pair.com/law.html If the Justice Department is serious about prosecuting this people, they can get a motherload of goods on them by starting here....or die trying, if you know what I mean....... MEET THE WORLD MONEY POWER Copyright December 2004 Charles Savoie http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=20574 Views: 4124
President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913. History proved that on that day, the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers. - Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest