“Enron’s Jeff Skilling Could Get Early Release From Prison”

April 4, 2013

CNBC on April 4, 2013 released the following:

“By: Scott Cohn
CNBC Senior Correspondent

Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, who is serving a 24-year prison term for his role in the energy giant’s epic collapse, could get out of prison early under an agreement being discussed by his attorneys and the Justice Department, CNBC has learned.

Skilling, who was convicted in 2006 of conspiracy, fraud and insider trading, has served just over six years. It is not clear how much his sentence would be shortened under the deal.

A federal appeals panel ruled in 2009 that the original sentence imposed by U.S. District Judge Sim Lake was too harsh, but a re-sentencing for the 59-year-old Skilling has repeatedly been delayed, first as the appeals process played out, and then as the negotiations for a deal progressed.

Those talks had been a closely guarded secret, but Thursday the Justice Department quietly issued a notice to victims required under federal law:

“The Department of Justice is considering entering into a sentencing agreement with the defendant in this matter,” the notice reads. “Such a sentencing agreement could restrict the parties and the Court from recommending, arguing for, or imposing certain sentences or conditions of confinement. It could also restrict the parties from challenging certain issues on appeal, including the sentence ultimately imposed by the Court at a future sentencing hearing.”

(Read More: Flush With Crime: Study Shows Prison a Career Booster)

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. Skilling’s longtime defense attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Lake, who imposed the original sentence, would have the final say in the sentence. The posting of the notice, however, suggests the parties have some indication he will go along. Lake held a private conference call with attorneys for both sides last month.

For Skilling, who has consistently maintained his innocence, an agreement would end a long ordeal, although his conviction on 19 criminal counts would likely stand. The government, meanwhile, would avoid a potentially messy court battle over alleged misconduct by the Justice Department’s elite Enron Task Force appointed in the wake of the company’s sudden failure in 2001.

Skilling’s attorneys had planned to move for a new trial based on that alleged misconduct. Under a sentencing agreement, that motion would likely be dropped.

Skilling, who developed Enron’s business model as an “asset-light” energy trading company, rose to CEO in early 2001, only to resign six months later. Soon after that, Enron began its sudden plunge into what was at the time the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Federal appeals panel to hear CIA leak case

May 18, 2012

The Boston Globe on May 18, 2012 released the following:

“By Zinie Chen Sampson
Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va.—A federal appeals panel will hear the case of an ex-CIA officer charged with leaking classified information about Iran’s nuclear program to a New York Times reporter.

Federal prosecutors will ask the panel Friday to reverse a pretrial ruling limiting the scope of reporter James Risen’s testimony in the prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling. They argue that the First Amendment doesn’t shield journalists from disclosing their sources during criminal prosecutions brought in good faith.

The judge ruled that Risen must testify at Sterling’s trial, but narrowed his testimony to four issues.

Prosecutors say Sterling was a key source in Risen’s 2006 book, “State of War.” They’re also challenging the court’s decision to strike two government witnesses and allow disclosure of the identities of covert CIA operatives to Sterling’s lawyers.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Ex-McKinsey Consultant Banki’s Conviction Reversed in Part

October 26, 2011
Mahmoud Reza Banki

Business Week on October 24, 2011 released the following:

“By Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado

(Updates with hearing date in 14th paragraph.)

Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) — Former McKinsey & Co. consultant Mahmoud Reza Banki’s convictions for violating the Iran trade embargo and running an unlicensed money-transfer business were thrown out on appeal.

A federal appeals court in New York today reversed Banki’s June 2010 conviction on three counts that charged him with violating U.S. regulations barring trade with Iran and running an informal transfer business called a hawala.

The court upheld Banki’s convictions on two counts of lying in response to a subpoena from the U.S. Treasury Department about the matter. The court said prosecutors may retry Banki on two of the three overturned counts.

Banki, who has been in U.S. custody since his arrest in January 2010, has served most of his 30-month sentence and is due to be released no later than March, according to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons website.

The decision today may affect the government’s attempt to collect $3.3 million in asset forfeitures it’s seeking in connection with the overturned criminal charges.

Banki, 35, is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iran. He has a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Princeton University.

‘Life Back Together’

“He’s going to be able to put his life back together and live a very productive life,” said Baruch Weiss, a lawyer for Banki.

Banki used a system called a hawala, popular in the Middle East and South Asia, to transfer funds, according to the appeals court.

U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin, writing for a three-judge appeals panel, said Banki’s family transferred $3.4 million to him from Iran. He received as many as 56 hawala transfers into his bank account from 44 different people and companies over more than three years, Chin said.

In a hawala, money doesn’t physically move through the banking system across borders. Instead, customers transfer funds to operators known as hawaladars in one country, and corresponding funds are distributed by associate hawaladars in another country. The parallel accounts are later settled by the hawaladars in a variety of ways.

Defense lawyers claimed Banki didn’t violate the law because he got the money from his family and reported the funds to the U.S. government.

“This is a vindication of the defense,” Weiss said of the appeals court decision.

Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, said his office was reviewing the opinion and had no further comment.

U.S. District Judge John Keenan set a hearing in the case for Nov. 2, according to Weiss.

The case is U.S. v. Banki, 1:10-CR-00008, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Judges consider Jared Lee Loughner’s medication

August 31, 2011

The Los Angeles Times on August 31, 2011 released the following:

“Lawyers for the Tucson shooting suspect say his involuntary treatment with anti-psychotic drugs is a violation of his rights.

By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times

Prison doctors are violating the rights of Tucson shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner by forcibly medicating him with drugs more powerful than needed to control his outbursts, defense lawyers told a federal appeals court Tuesday.

The three-judge panel weighing Loughner’s plea for an end to the involuntary medication with anti-psychotic drugs appeared sensitive to the defendant’s legal arguments that, as he hasn’t been tried on the 49 felony counts against him, he should retain the right to decide what drugs go into his body.

At a hearing that could determine whether Loughner is ever rendered competent to stand trial in the Jan. 8 attack that killed six and injured 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), the judges peppered the government’s lawyer with questions, suggesting they look askance at the prison’s practice of forcing psychotropic drugs on Loughner when mild sedatives would suffice.

At issue is whether Bureau of Prison policies for dealing with dangerous inmates apply to pretrial detainees, like Loughner, who was sent to a hospital in Springfield, Mo., on a federal judge’s order to try to restore his mental competency so he can stand trial.

Prison medical officials have rejected the defense’s calls for using tranquilizers or physical restraints, arguing that they need to treat Loughner’s underlying mental illness to prevent him from being a danger to himself or others.

Loughner was diagnosed with schizophrenia during an initial confinement at the Missouri hospital and deemed incompetent to stand trial in May by U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Christina M. Cabanillas told the panel that Supreme Court case law obliged them to defer to the prison administration’s judgment on what medication was necessary and appropriate to “mitigate his dangerousness.” Loughner has reportedly thrown the chair in his cell against the wall, spat at one of his attorneys and shouted expletives and unintelligible rants.

In legal papers filed with the court, Loughner’s attorneys argued that his behavior didn’t justify treatment with powerful anti-psychotic drugs, and that the medications could have long-term negative health effects and damage his ability to assist in his own defense if he is eventually put on trial.

In court, defense attorney Reuben Camper Cahn urged the judges to require prison officials to get federal court approval for their involuntary treatment plans.

One of the panelists, Judge J. Clifford Wallace, observed that Loughner might have a “liberty interest” in not being rendered competent to face charges that could lead to a death penalty.

Another U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel last month issued a temporary injunction against forcing the drugs on Loughner, but prison doctors resumed them on July 18, citing emergency circumstances.

Tuesday’s panel, on which Wallace was joined by Judges Marsha S. Berzon and Jay S. Bybee, isn’t expected to rule for several weeks.”

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

Bookmark and Share