ENRON decision coming

Parent Cafe
41

<p>“I have no idea whether these guys are guilty of crimes, but I do know none of you know either.”</p>

<p>Excuse me, but I do know. And rather precisely. “Guilty” is a legal term of adjudication in a court of law. To be “found guilty” is to have a jury of your peers, examine all the evidence and testimony presented to them, and come to a unanimous, unbiased verdict that both the illegal acts in question were committed, and that those charged committed them.</p>

<p>I know with 99.44% certainty that they are “guilty” (the remaining chance being that I inhabit an alternate universe.) Literally infinitely guiltier than OJ.</p>

<p>As to what they did or didn’t do, they have on their own conscience to decide.</p>

42

<p>“Literally infinitely guiltier than OJ”. </p>

<p>Gotta love these boards.</p>

43

<p><a href=“http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/26/MNGETJ2Q151.DTL[/url]”>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/26/MNGETJ2Q151.DTL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

44

<p>Enron’s successors are trying to get $150 Million or so from some Washington utilities in the same schemes. The state has a bill in Congress now to void the claims as illgotten gains.</p>

45

<p><a href=“Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg;

<p>Lay, Skilling Assets Targeted by U.S. After Guilty Verdicts
May 26 (Bloomberg) – Now that Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling have been convicted of the fraud that destroyed Enron Corp., the government is poised to seize $62 million of their assets. </p>

<p>Prosecutors are seeking to recover $57 million in cash, securities and real estate from Skilling, including his Houston home. They want Lay’s high-rise condominium, worth about $5 million. The U.S. froze the assets in 2004, when Lay and Skilling, both former chief executive officers of now-bankrupt Enron, were indicted. A jury yesterday found them guilty of fraud and conspiracy. </p>

<p>U.S. law permits the government to seek assets obtained directly or indirectly from crimes. If prosecutors can connect the proceeds to the crime, the judge will order the forfeiture. </p>

<p><code>Given the convictions, this will probably be a fairly perfunctory proceeding,‘’ Kirby Behre, a former prosecutor now in private practice and the co-author of a book on federal sentencing for business crimes, said today.</code>The judge has some discretion in the amount of the forfeiture order.‘’ </p>

<p>Samantha Martin, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department’s Enron Task Force, said yesterday in an e-mailed message after the convictions the government will ``begin the formal process of seeking an order of forfeiture from the court for all of these assets.‘’ </p>

<p>Lay and Skilling were convicted of using off-books partnerships to disguise Enron’s debts and of lying to investors and employees about the company’s dire financial situation while selling their own company shares. </p>

<p>Prison Terms </p>

<p>Asset forfeiture comes on top of prison terms that legal experts say could be as long as 25 years for each man. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, who presided at the 16-week trial in Houston federal court, has set sentencing for Sept. 11. Until then, the men remain free on $5 million bail each. </p>

<p>Enron, once the world’s largest energy trading firm, had more than $68 billion in market value before its bankruptcy in December 2001 wiped out thousands of jobs and at least $1 billion in retirement funds that held company stock. </p>

<p>Preliminary pre-sentencing reports are due July 7 from the court’s Probation Office. The final report, due Sept.1, will set out the probation office’s estimate of the financial damage the defendants caused. Lawyers for both sides will have a chance to review the Probation Office’s findings and lodge objections. </p>

<p>Lake will consider the size of the losses caused by the fraud when deciding on punishment. Kelly Kimberly, Lay’s spokeswoman, had no immediate comment on presenting matters. Skilling’s attorney Daniel Petrocelli didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment. </p>

<p>Other Sentences </p>

<p>Former WorldCom Inc. Chairman Bernard Ebbers, sentenced in 2005 to 25 years in federal prison for leading an $11 billion fraud, is free pending his appeal. Cendant Corp.'s former Vice Chairman E. Kirk Shelton faces 10 years in federal prison for accounting fraud. He is also free pending appeal. </p>

<p>Former Tyco International Inc. CEO L. Dennis Kozlowski and his former finance chief Mark Swartz are serving 8 1/3 to 25 years in New York state prisons for stealing from their company and defrauding investors. </p>

<p>The Enron case is U.S. v. Skilling, 04-cr-25, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston). </p>

<p>To contact the reporter on this story:
Andrew Dunn in New York at <a href="mailto:adunn8@bloomberg.net">adunn8@bloomberg.net</a>.</p>

46

<p>Re: post #45.</p>

<p>Very beautiful.</p>

47

<p>

No, actually you don’t know. You know that the jury issued a VERDICT of guilty. Whether the verdict of guilt is accurate, you don’t know. Whether Lay and Skilling actually committed crimes, you don’t know.</p>

<p>Have you ever heard the name Earl Washington? He spent 18 years on death row after pleading guilty and being convicted of murder. That’s right there was a verdict of guilty. Turns out he did not committed the murder and, thus, was not guilty even though he was found guilty. </p>

<p>As to the accuracy of juries and courts I cite a certain self-proclaimed expert who said the following:

</p>

<p>I guess it is just a matter of percentages:

So it’s official! Mini inhabits an alternate universe.</p>

48

<p>In a legal sense, a verdict of guilty means he’s guilty. No one found anything other than guilty is gulty, and no found guilty is not.</p>

<p>Whether they did “it” is an entirely different matter. Earl Washington was guilty until another legal process undid the guilty verdict. It didn’t matter in the least whether he did “it”. In fact, it is even theoretically possible for a guilty verdict to be overturned even when the guy actually did “it” (happens daily.)</p>

49

<p>razorsharp, do you think they are not guilty of ALL the charges</p>

<p>And remember, they didn’t charge them with everything
Guess all the memo’s and them admitting to what they did, but saying it WASN’T illegal, when in fact, it was</p>

<p>Gosh, defending these theives, these liars, these men who cared so little for other humans, who didn’t care about elderly, who stole money, who cheated share holders, who didn’t care if a child lived or died (no power to ventalators, etc)</p>

<p>Gee, keep defending away, they are scum</p>

50

<p>

Like I said earlier, I really don’t know whether they are guilty of the crimes for which they have been convicted. </p>

<p>My primary concerns are: First, in 2002, Arthur Anderson, Enron’s auditor (remember them?) admitted to destroying thousands and thousands of documents. Did those documents reveal the real criminals? Fastow created the first questionable partnership in 1999 when Richard Causey returned to Enron from Arther Anderson. What does this mean? It could mean Arther Anderson knew what was going on and probably recommended it as a legitimate business deal. Or it could mean that Arther Anderson was trying to cover up for their buddy Richard Causey who later pled guilty in return for providing evidence to the government. </p>

<p>Second, another primary witness against Lay and Skilling was Andrew Fastow. He pled guilty in return for providing evidence to the government against Lay and Skilling. </p>

<p>Third, Lay and Skilling mostly were charged with being part of a conspiracy which included – Guess Who? Yea, the guys who had already pled guilty. If you were faced with lying or getting an extra 10 years in prision, wouldn’t you lie? How about if your wife (spouse) could get a better deal if you lied?</p>

<p>Fourth, Reg. U was enacted in the Depression and not used much since that time. It wasn’t intended to stop what Lay did. It was intended to address problems of another time. So why does Lay have to pay for prohabitions of another day? </p>

<p>Fifth, having bad subordinates is not a crime. Being a bad manager is not a crime. This trial seems to have criminalized bad management.</p>

<p>Who knows?</p>

51

<p>Razorsharp,
I agree with much of your logic above. You have obviously followed and thought through these legal proceedings. But here’s the thing… somebody has to go down hard for this deal. I have no doubt that there were many players in this game way more culpable than Lay & Skilling for the criminal activity that went down at Enron and Arthur Anderson. Hiring bad subordinates and accountants may not be a crime, but hey, the bad subordinates copped a plea and we can’t get all frothy about them. It is unfortunate for Lay and Skilling that they must be the poster kids for Corporate Corruption. There are many,many more Captains of Industry who have played the same game and in “fairness” should be suffering the same fate. We can’t lock everybody up. </p>

<p>The Enron mess has been a political/media fest since it blew up. Too bad for Lay and Skilling. To the lions they go. </p>

<p>So beware Captains of Industry. Be careful who you hire. And if the accountants and advisors tell you something too good to believe, it is probably a crime.</p>

52

<p>They were guilty as sin. If anyone gave unbelievable and dubious testimony it was those two. “I forgot” does not cut it.</p>

53

<p>The US Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Skilling. </p>

<p>[Supreme</a> Court sides with Skilling’s appeal | Front page | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/7077853.html]Supreme”>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/7077853.html)</p>

54

<p>I wouldn’t say that his conviction was overturned:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Per the article, there is still plenty of legal wrangling left with this case.</p>