5 ms·

I've followed this case over the years and it's completely in character to see that he has no remorse whatsoever. He had been draining funds from his company,

I've followed this case over the years and it's completely in character to see that he has no remorse whatsoever. He had been draining funds from his company, Hollinger International, into his own pockets for years. Shareholder pressure forced an investigation by the board, upon which he resigned, and was subsequently convicted for securities fraud. And of course he now describes himself as one of the "people, who, like me, would never dream of committing a crime...". Notwithstanding his personal shortcomings, he's right about sentencing and the public defender system. Not that he has to worry about that!

todayiamme 16y ago
You know I got the other sense from this article. He doesn't want to show remorse because he wants to appear strong; a resilient rock against the ravages of other mere mortals. Yet, he knows that he did something wrong. He saw the pain and suffering of others up close and personal at a huge stretch of time for 2 years, and this is his way of dealing with guilt. Somewhere in his mind he sincerely believes that by speaking on the behalf of these people he is making a form of penance. I feel sad for him.
kevbin 16y ago
According to the indictment, he wasn't charged with securities fraud (§1348) but with mail fraud (§1341), wire fraud (§1343), and honest services fraud (§1346). Black's lawyers have an interesting note about the appeal here: http://www.gibsondunn.com/Publications/Pages/USSupremeCourtToDecideLimits-HonestServiceMailFraudProsecutions.aspx http://www.gibsondunn.com/Publications/Pages/USSupremeCourtT... As I understand it, Black negotiated a huge management fee authorized by Hollinger's board. The board figured-out they'd made a bad deal. Black got greedier and tried to get the management fee re-characterized as a non-compete to avoid Canadian taxes. The board schemed to get rid of Black and get the fees rescinded. The SEC got involved, the IRS got involved. The Hollinger board members with government savvy (e.g., Henry Kissinger) ran away when the US Attorney (Fitzgerald) got involved. The others cowered and said whatever necessary to keep them from becoming targets of the grand jury investigation. Radler fell into Fitzgerald's arms and sang whatever song kept him out of Lompoc. Black, Kipnis, and Boultbee were convicted on 1 of 11 counts: depriving the company they were running (Hollinger) of its right to honest services (§1346) and using the mail (§1341) and telephone to (§1343) do so. Honest services is defined in § 1346, which reads in total "For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." But the feds have been broadening the case law since the 1940s and use it as a catch all for corruption and fraud cases. It's so broad that every justice from Ginsberg to Scalia just called it unconstitutionally broad. It's broad enough to cover a lot of everyday business deals. Fitzgerald spent a lot of effort detailing Black's lifestyle and Hollinger's willingness to subsidize it; but Hollinger's board was aware of and approved those subsidies. My feeling is that the jury figured someone who lived Black's lifestyle at the expense of a company was doing something wrong and the only thing in the indictment that fit was the overly-broad honest services fraud: shareholder-supported-lifestyle fraud, the same thing that got one of the Enron guys. Those kinds of arrangements are wrong and inefficient; but probably shouldn't be illegal, lest a whole bunch of other common business practices become scrutinized, regulated, and outlawed.

todayiamme 16y ago

You know I got the other sense from this article. He doesn't want to show remorse because he wants to appear strong; a resilient rock against the ravages of other mere mortals. Yet, he knows that he did something wrong. He saw the pain and suffering of others up close and personal at a huge stretch of time for 2 years, and this is his way of dealing with guilt. Somewhere in his mind he sincerely believes that by speaking on the behalf of these people he is making a form of penance. I feel sad for him.

kevbin 16y ago

According to the indictment, he wasn't charged with securities fraud (§1348) but with mail fraud (§1341), wire fraud (§1343), and honest services fraud (§1346). Black's lawyers have an interesting note about the appeal here: http://www.gibsondunn.com/Publications/Pages/USSupremeCourtToDecideLimits-HonestServiceMailFraudProsecutions.aspx http://www.gibsondunn.com/Publications/Pages/USSupremeCourtT... As I understand it, Black negotiated a huge management fee authorized by Hollinger's board. The board figured-out they'd made a bad deal. Black got greedier and tried to get the management fee re-characterized as a non-compete to avoid Canadian taxes. The board schemed to get rid of Black and get the fees rescinded. The SEC got involved, the IRS got involved. The Hollinger board members with government savvy (e.g., Henry Kissinger) ran away when the US Attorney (Fitzgerald) got involved. The others cowered and said whatever necessary to keep them from becoming targets of the grand jury investigation. Radler fell into Fitzgerald's arms and sang whatever song kept him out of Lompoc. Black, Kipnis, and Boultbee were convicted on 1 of 11 counts: depriving the company they were running (Hollinger) of its right to honest services (§1346) and using the mail (§1341) and telephone to (§1343) do so. Honest services is defined in § 1346, which reads in total "For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." But the feds have been broadening the case law since the 1940s and use it as a catch all for corruption and fraud cases. It's so broad that every justice from Ginsberg to Scalia just called it unconstitutionally broad. It's broad enough to cover a lot of everyday business deals. Fitzgerald spent a lot of effort detailing Black's lifestyle and Hollinger's willingness to subsidize it; but Hollinger's board was aware of and approved those subsidies. My feeling is that the jury figured someone who lived Black's lifestyle at the expense of a company was doing something wrong and the only thing in the indictment that fit was the overly-broad honest services fraud: shareholder-supported-lifestyle fraud, the same thing that got one of the Enron guys. Those kinds of arrangements are wrong and inefficient; but probably shouldn't be illegal, lest a whole bunch of other common business practices become scrutinized, regulated, and outlawed.