posted
A drop in the bucket because actually, they are using mark-to-market fraud and so the valuation of their thievery was based on monies they could accumulate in the future...
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
As I understand it, the crux of the problem is this: There is a lack of precedent in prosecuting a case like this- it's NOT a straight forward matter of they "stole" from investors as such, because no investors had their accounts violated- It's "Fraud" because Lay and co misrepresented the company's financial status as a means to make money for themselves as the company was going down in flames. The by-product was that this misrepresentation led to a false sense of security among the investors (and the good numbers led additional people to invest in the house of cards).
In the past, this happened all the time and had actually saved companies from bankruptcy as new investor capital (temporarly) re-inforces the house of cards untill loans or additional investors can strengthen the company again. Welcome to the airline insustry in the 1980's. (notice that Delta's finally bankrupt now- probably not a coincidence).
As to the indea of seizing their assetts- it's also not that simple. If you're accused of robbing a bank, the judge can freeze any money proven to belong to the bank, or that you would not have had access to- In Lay's case, we dont know how much money he was worth prior to Enron's tailspin and it would be logistically impossible to seperate all his personal worth from the company he founded.
Also, freezing all his assetts would lead to an instant appeal on grounds he could not adequately defend himself from the dozens of lawyers and econemists the prosecution has with an appointed attorney.
(shrug)
There will be the inevitible civil suit, but it's both unwinable and pointless. Unwinable because investors take an inherent risk in investing and pointless because the money will either be squirreled away or pissed away on legal fees by the time any judgment is made in a civil or class action case.
And a class action can be ignored indefinitely if you're rich and have connections: just look at thte Tobacco and Big Sugar class actions- ignored for years and the overturned completely by Republican politicians. if people with lung cancer or poisoned by everglades pollution cant get money, dont think an investor is likely to see anything either.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"Also, freezing all his assetts would lead to an instant appeal on grounds he could not adequately defend himself from the dozens of lawyers and econemists the prosecution has with an appointed attorney."
If that were true, then every person ever defended by a public defender could make the same claim. Just because one can (ostensibly) afford an expensive attorney does not mean one has the inalienable right to such. To claim an inadequate defense, I'm pretty sure you have to prove your lawyer did something wrong. Not just "he wasn't good enough because he was cheap".
[ May 26, 2006, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd agree in most cases, but in this particular case, the appointed counsel would need to be versed in far more than criminal defense and would need a knowledge of both corperate accounting practices and investor risk and stock market in order to counter the prosecution's experts. Many of whom are likely paid for their expertise.
How many attorneys from the defense pool do you suppose fit those qualifications? An appeal does not need to be based on a lawyer making a mistake- many appels have been made on a lack of experience on state-provided counsel.
It sucks, but it's a fact- if the state wants to throw everything they've got at you, particularly in a case where the media had swayed the opinion of any potential jury in the prosecution's favor, a state-appointed defense is unlikely to be able to mount an adequate or qualified response.
It's not a right to an expensive attorney- only a qualified one- the goal is to set the defense on equal ground as the prosecution.
But, on the grounds you cited, a state Supreme Court could uphold the verdict regardless of the ability )or lack therteof) on the defense's part.
All this aside, the state had a very clear case with strong public support against Ley and would not want any perception of inpropriety to creep in, Better to allow a strong, competant defense, so that when the guilty verdict was reached, there is no doubt that due process was upheld.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
The recently convicted former Enron chairman Kenneth L. Lay, 64, died early today in Aspen, Colo., a family spokeswoman and the sheriff's office said. Lay, convicted of fraud and conspiracy for his part in the Houston-based energy company's collapse, had faced the possibility of life in prison at his sentencing scheduled for October.
Family spokeswoman Kelly Kimberly said Lay died of a heart attack. A statement from the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office said deputies and an ambulance were sent to Lay's vacation home in Old Snowmass near Aspen at 1:41 a.m. for "a medical emergency."
"Mr. Lay was transported to Aspen Valley Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 3:11 a.m.," the statement said. "A coroner's autopsy is pending." The statement said the autopsy results will be available later this week.
"The Lays have a very large family with whom they need to communicate, and out of respect for the family, we will release further details at a later time," a statement from the Lay family said.
On Friday, federal prosecutors asked a judge to order Lay and former Enron executive Jeffrey K. Skilling to turn over $182.2 million in assets, arguing that their homes and other assets were acquired by fraud.
In May, a federal jury convicted Lay of each of the half-dozen counts with which he was charged and found his prot?g? Skilling guilty of 19 more, pinning them with the responsibility for one of the era's biggest and most damaging business frauds. The two men were ordered to return to court for sentencing on Oct. 23.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Anyone else suspect either suicide or foul play?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:On Friday, federal prosecutors asked a judge to order Lay and former Enron executive Jeffrey K. Skilling to turn over $182.2 million in assets, arguing that their homes and other assets were acquired by fraud.
I can see this case quietly disapearing...
Firstly, it's tough to prove anything (or much anyway) was result of fraud- Lay was only convicted of fraud as Enron did it's tailspin, and most of that stuff was aquired looong before that. Second, without Lay himself to enbody the greedy executive, cameras will focus on his grieving family, who almost certainly knew nothing about any fraudulant activity.
Just my own prediction mind you- not that a total victory for the state would give anything back to the poor saps that lost all their money on Enron stock. Only the inevitible civil/class action suit can do that.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
