iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling

MARK SHERMAN   06/24/10 07:36 PM ET   AP

Supreme Court Enron Jeffrey Skilling
The Supreme Court has sided with former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling in limiting the use of a federal fraud law that has been a favorite of white-collar crime prosecutors.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply curtailed prosecutors' use of an anti-fraud law that was central in convicting politicians and corporate executives in many of the nation's most prominent corruption cases. The ex-CEO of disgraced energy giant Enron and a Canadian media mogul, both in prison, are among the figures who could benefit from the ruling.

The justices voted 6-3 to keep the law in force, even as they joined unanimously in weakening it, and left it to a lower court to decide whether Jeffrey Skilling, the former Enron boss, and Conrad Black, the former newspaper owner, should have their convictions stemming from "honest services" fraud overturned.

The "honest services" law has been criticized by defense lawyers as the last resort of prosecutors in corruption cases that lack the evidence to prove that money is changing hands. It also has been called vague, subjecting people to prosecution for mistakes and minor transgressions in the business and political worlds. But watchdogs consider it key to fighting white-collar and public fraud.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the decision "deprives prosecutors of an important tool in their efforts to fight public corruption. Previous convictions may be vacated and corrupt officials will have an easier time escaping accountability for their misdeeds."

The court, in an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said prosecutors may continue to seek honest services fraud convictions in cases where they put forward evidence that defendants accepted bribes or kickbacks.

"Because Skilling's misconduct entailed no bribe or kickback, he did not conspire to commit honest-services fraud under our confined construction" of the law, Ginsburg said. Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have found the law unconstitutional.

Thursday's decision does not necessarily mean that any of the 19 counts against Skilling or four counts against Black will be thrown out, Ginsburg said. At the same time, by a 6-3 vote, the court rejected Skilling's claim that he did not get a fair trial in Houston because of the harsh publicity surrounding the case in Enron's hometown.

It is unclear whether any convictions will be overturned or prison sentences reduced as a result of the decision, lawyers familiar with the fraud law said. Determinations will have to be made case by case.

But there is no doubt how important the law has been to prosecutors. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said recently that the honest services cases at the high court were the ones that mattered most to the Justice Department.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said prosecutors would continue to urge that honest services convictions for Skilling, Black and others be upheld. "While we are disappointed that today's Supreme Court decisions narrowed the honest services statute, we are pleased that the Court upheld many of the core provisions that have been used for decades to prosecute corrupt public officials and corporate executives who have breached their duties to their constituents, clients, and investors," Schmaler said.

Lawyers for the two men say that the entire case against them should be thrown out. "This paves the way for a reversal of the convictions of Mr. Skilling and to a complete exoneration," said Daniel Petrocelli, Skilling's lawyer.

Miguel Estrada, who represented Black at the Supreme Court, said, "We are confident the lower courts will quickly conclude that the errors that the Supreme Court has now conclusively found tainted every aspect of this case. We look forward to helping Mr. Black regain his freedom."

Honest services charges have figured in convictions won against former Govs. George Ryan of Illinois and Don Siegelman of Alabama, and former Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California, William Jefferson of Louisiana and Bob Ney of Ohio.

Former New York Senate leader Joseph Bruno is facing two years in prison after being convicted under the same federal statute, and the judge in his case said he is reviewing the court's decision. Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich faces honest services charges in his ongoing trial, although the judge in that case said Thursday the high court ruling might not be of much help to Blagojevich.

Honest services charges also have been used regularly in public corruption cases stemming from the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, including in the pending retrial of former Abramoff associate Kevin Ring.

The new limits will lead to another hearing for Black and could mean the end of federal prosecutors' case against former Alaska lawmaker Bruce Weyhrauch.

Donald Ayer, a Washington lawyer who represented Weyhrauch, said the ruling will put the brakes on prosecutors' increasingly aggressive and creative efforts to win convictions under the 28-word fraud law that makes it a crime "to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Skilling was convicted in 2006 of conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading and lying to auditors for his role in the downfall of the once-mighty Houston-based energy giant. The company collapsed into bankruptcy in 2001 under the weight of years of illicit business deals and accounting tricks. Skilling is serving a sentence of more than 24 years at a minimum security prison outside Denver, although a federal appeals court had ordered a re-sentencing even before Thursday's decision.

Black, serving a 6 1/2-year prison term, and two other former executives were convicted of depriving the Hollinger International media empire of their faithful services as corporate officers. The company once owned the Chicago Sun-Times, The Daily Telegraph of London, The Jerusalem Post and hundreds of community papers across the United States and Canada.

Central to the case is $5.5 million that the defendants say were management fees they were owed and were trying to collect in such a way that they would not have to pay Canadian income tax. The government says the money belonged to the company's shareholders.

Weyhrauch wants charges against him dropped. Prosecutors allege that he failed to disclose he was in job negotiations with an oil-field operations company at the same time the state legislature was also considering an oil bill. Weyhrauch says disclosure was not required by Alaska law.

___

Associated Press writer Juan Lozano in Houston contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply curtailed prosecutors' use of an anti-fraud law that was central in convicting politicians and corporate executives in many of the nation's mos...
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply curtailed prosecutors' use of an anti-fraud law that was central in convicting politicians and corporate executives in many of the nation's mos...
Filed by Nick Wing  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,983
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (46 total)
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
10:21 AM on 06/28/2010
McDonald .v. Chicago just released, win for the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, the liberal justices voted to overturn the precedent set in D.C.v.Heller
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
07:31 AM on 06/28/2010
scotus in favor of 'big money' people? Who would of guessed?
photo
Morgantheaxe
Eisenhower Republicans don't drink tea!!
01:53 AM on 06/27/2010
I don't think the supreme court is weighing the ramifacations of what it's doing. The constant siding with the big and powerful over the people is creating a situation of hopelesness and complete cynicism regarding a persons ability to get justice. When people truly feel there is no recourse they don't always frown and go away. They sometimes take justice in to their own hands. Creating this situation is going to cause more people the supreme court thinks its protecting.....to die.
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
07:32 AM on 06/28/2010
You kinda wonder why antoneeoooskaleeeeeyaaaa would want to destroy the country. Why?
04:16 PM on 06/26/2010
There are people who will never fully recover from what enron did, the least that's fair is jeff skilling completing his sentence. Why can't we punish people who abuse they're position and the trust of others for gain.
05:27 PM on 06/27/2010
Sure you can...but those with the gold make the rules
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
evalela
12:05 PM on 06/26/2010
Let me get this straight a corporate theif goes free and a whistle blower goes to jail,what does this teach our children it's okay to steal,but not to tell the truth,for shame!!!!!!!
05:27 PM on 06/27/2010
No aren't you awake? It's teaching them if they are going to steal, steal BIG.
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
11:39 AM on 06/26/2010
Should read;

Anyone else wish to explain how this decision was unanimous in that no Justice dissented to the entire decision.
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
11:38 AM on 06/26/2010
Anyone else wish to explain how this decision was unanimous in that no Justice wrote dissented to the entire decision.

Privatepractice 04:58 PM on 6/24/2010
92 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Coming from another Retug who does not know the meaning of LIBERAL and thinks it is an insult. YOU should look up the word UNANIMOUS because a ruling of 6 to 3 does not make it UNANIMOUS! So while looking up LIBERAL look up UNANIMOUS! PLEASE!

The 6-3 was if skilling received a fair trial. The issue decided was if the law was to vague, which ALL Justices concurred with the opinion of Justice Ginsburg.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Abdi S
11:20 AM on 06/26/2010
Coorperate America will never get punish by the judical system ruling but instead the government want them to not get charges which means supreme court is under Obama admistration or Bush era.
11:14 AM on 06/26/2010
Now I understand...Enron was just a simple mistake and minor transgression...we should let them go free. Our blessed supreme court says so. Our country is so broken.
05:28 PM on 06/27/2010
Then fix it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:05 AM on 06/26/2010
salt in the wounds..
06:41 AM on 06/26/2010
Surprise! The authoritarian-totalitarian Vatican Supreme Court Five sided with unelected power.
08:52 PM on 06/25/2010
I detest what the Supremely Silly Court has become.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Cohn
05:02 AM on 06/26/2010
Please learn the difference between Campaign EXPENDITURES...and campaign CONTRIBUTIONS if your going to talk about Citizen's United....

Your correct it was a silly decision, but you should at least know the actual reasons why, not what some newspaper article misunderstood. Citizen's United only addressed EXPENDITURES...i.e. the right to spend money on adds...NOT on contributions which are direct monetary gifts.
12:10 PM on 06/28/2010
Why should I know what you tell me to know? I don't like you. I don't care for your view of the world. I don't feel any obligation or even remote interest in doing what you tell me I should do. Go away.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Albert Amato
05:50 PM on 06/28/2010
Ben, how can you have a discussion with a juvenile with a handle such as his.
Grandpappy, always says "argue with a fool long enough and people on the sidelines may not recognize the fool".......quit while your are ahead.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
06:58 PM on 06/25/2010
The great conundrum of writing legislation is that vague or generalized wording invites abuse while specificity creates loopholes.

Lawmaking is too much barter system and not enough logic. More passion than science. It is inherently inefficient, but it is the system we have.

We depend on the courts to smooth out the rough edges, but the courts are gaining rough edges of their own. Conservatives are making sure of it.
photo
HDR
I best respond to half-truths and gorilla dust.
02:36 PM on 06/25/2010
Forget your American Exceptionalism. You know what's the real difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world? The citizens of every other country in the world acknowledge that the laws do not apply to the rich and powerful. Telling your kids that no one is above the law holds as much truth as letting them believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, except for the gifts, of course.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
"Conservative" is not a political party, genius.
02:33 PM on 06/25/2010
Those conservatives sure do love their judicial activism.

Who needs law and precedent, when you have a fraud-based ideology, and Loyal Bushies to shill for?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Cohn
03:02 PM on 06/25/2010
U.S. v. McNally...thats precedent on this issue. Congress tried to fix the problems with 1346...they didn't do a good job. How about getting mad at CONGRESS whose job it is to write laws that acutally tell you what they make illegal and what they don't.

Or I'm sorry you'd rather through away our system if it serves your agenda...your no better than a Tea Bagger.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
"Conservative" is not a political party, genius.
04:50 PM on 06/25/2010
So once again, you have nothing to support your claims, and have to resort to personal attacks.

Keep doing it, I'll just keep flagging your posts.
08:54 PM on 06/25/2010
"Super User" Cohn: it's 'throw' away our system, not 'through' away... and it's also 'you're no better... not 'your' not better.

Your badge belies your education.
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
11:24 AM on 06/26/2010
So you think the Supreme Court should not do anything about vague laws?