Conrad Black gets media apology and favourable court ruling courtesy of Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling
Ex–media mogul Conrad Black should send a thank-you card to fellow corporate convict Jeffrey Skilling. The former president and CEO of Enron successfully challenged the use of a statute referred to by the U.S. Supreme Court as the “honest services” law, which was used to convict him of corporate fraud in 2006. Skilling’s challenge also resulted in a public reconsideration of Black’s case and, most importantly for gentlemen like Lord Black, an apology from the Wall Street Journal, which upon enlightened self-reflection found it had been too hard on him.
The law criminalizes any scheme that deprives another of the “intangible right of honest services” (pretty much anything that would make Michael Moore‘s blood boil). Skilling’s defence, and the law’s critics, say the law was ambiguous and therefore could not be used legitimately by prosecutors. As the Washington Post—one of the many newspapers to editorialize on the subject—wrote, “All nine justices concluded that the honest-services law was so broad and so vague that it could capture all manner of behavior, including what many reasonable people would not consider criminal.” Thus, to protect benign connivers, the statute was scaled back last Thursday.
Skilling’s victory won’t bail him and Black out any time soon, but we think they’re hoping it’ll give mad money men less of a bad rep. CEOs 1: robbed pensioners 0.
• “Honest services” law used too liberally by the courts [National Post]
• Wall Street Journal apologizes to Conrad Black [Maclean’s]
Good for Conrad.
When will Toronto Life show the decency to apologize to Conrad?
After all it’s obvious now that he was the one robbed, stolen from and unjustly prosecuted.
What a misleading post. Ms. Ryan suggests Black owes the favourable ruling to Skilling’s challenge alone, when in fact, Black mounted his own challenge rather than piggy-backing on Skilling’s. Black has successfully fought his way back from the darkest hollows of the American judicial system. Black’s challenge helped strip zealous prosecutors of a grossly unfair weapon and this is all Ms. Ryan has to say?
Jerry’s right.
The coverage of this case by Toronto Life was despicable, and judging by Ms. Ryan’s post, she is intent on continuing with this sloppy, inaccurate, and snide reporting.
Freedom:1 Tyranny:0
So, they rule that Lord Black, as he continues to be known until British parliament strips the ex-con of his non-hereditary title, never intentionally meant to defraud the shareholders of the company and deprive them of the intangible right of honest services. He only sought, after all, to enrich himself further by committing fraud and then illegally removing evidence of this crime. Should he get an apology for being ‘maligned’ by the press? Absolutely not! The fact is he was found guilty on counts that relate specifically to corporate fraud and he should not now be freed on a technicality that is being revised in terms of its application to corporate cases. If that is the case, how retroactively should it be used to exonerate those whose crimes have cost others jobs, pensions and dividends?