Ken Lay will never face prosecution

[xray s]

Remember him? Well, this article sums up the current status of the Bush DOJ investigation into the men who wrecked the American economy...

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/main_story.asp?intID=378505

Chief executives in trouble might elude prosecution
Daily Herald Reports
Posted 8/17/03
More than a year after the two biggest corporate frauds in U.S. history wiped out billions of dollars in assets and workers' pensions at WorldCom Inc. and Enron Corp., the chief executives who led those companies remain free of criminal charges.

Bernard Ebbers, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling may never face prosecution, according to former federal prosecutors and securities lawyers.

Federal prosecutors are still investigating Ebbers, the former milkman and bouncer from Alberta, Canada, who over 17 years transformed a small discount telephone company into WorldCom, the second-biggest U.S. long-distance service.

The former chief executive officers of Enron - Lay and Skilling - are also still under investigation, 19 months after the world's largest energy trader collapsed owing $67 billion to creditors.

"There is a definite sense that the people most responsible will ultimately never be charged," said Robert A. Mintz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and now a partner at the Newark, N.J., law firm McCarter & English.

(snip)

Making any kind of fraud case is difficult because "the mission is to prove someone knew that there was some sort of fraudulent transaction going on and knew that they were doing wrong," said the U.S. attorney in New York, James Comey, who is investigating WorldCom. "It's all about proving what is in their head."

Will Thomas, director of the Corporate Accountability Project of the Washington-based Gray Panthers, a social-action and lobbying group, said "It's unconscionable that charges haven't been brought at this point" against Ebbers. "Clearly there is enough evidence at this point."

Marcel Kahan, a securities law professor at New York University School of Law, disagreed, saying that evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the three former executives isn't so clear- cut.

"The question is: If the financial statements are fraudulent, who is responsible for it and what do prosecutors have to show to prove that the CEOs of these companies were in rather than out?" said Kahan. "It's entirely plausible in both of these cases that the prosecutors just don't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt."

They are going to walk, folks :mad:

[ComerPerro]

1. That tears it

Welcome to Bush's America.

Where the hell is the outrage???

[samsingh]

2. meanwhile

Martha Stewart is getting the book thrown at her.

[Clete]

5. Yeah, but she's a Democrat n/t

[indypaul]

3. If these yahoos did not

know what the hell was going on then there should be a
civil action against them for failure to perform their
contracts. Were they not supposed to be running the
companies? Every penny in salary paid them should be
recoverable.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. This DA is dead wrong about fraud cases

Making any kind of fraud case is difficult because "the mission is to prove someone knew that there was some sort of fraudulent transaction going on and knew that they were doing wrong," said the U.S. attorney in New York, James Comey, who is investigating WorldCom. "It's all about proving what is in their head."

Just as you don't have to prove that someone robbing a 7-11 knew in their head that it was wrong, you don't have to prove knowledge of wrongdoing for a CEO. If the CEO approved fraudulent transactions (and you can prove this with a paper trail), you don't need to know anything about "what is in their head". This is a lame excuse for selective prosecution. Martha Stewart (dem) prosecuted. Ken Lay (rep and president buddy) not prosecuted. :mad:

[xray s]

6. This should be one of the top issues of '04

What the hell has Bush done about bringing justice to the millions of Americans that lost their jobs, their savings and their pensions to a bunch of corporate robber barrons!

We should shout that at the top of our lungs for awhile.

[ctex]

7. The Feds need to turn Fastow to get Lay or Skilling

The DOJ needs to get Fastow, Causey or another top-tier Enron officer to cop a plea in return for evidence against against Lay and Skilling. Barring that it may be difficult to get enough evidence to prosecute.

Getting the evidence in Martha's case was very simple.

[Clete]

8. They can't prosecute Lay because to do so would

expose the fact that Bush has some direct links to this and it could lead to his impeachment. Where is an Independent Counsel when we need one?