Eminent Americans are saying the law needs to loosen up, writes philip delves broughton |
 |
When London's Russian oligarchs read about Conrad Black's treatment in America, they will doubtless feel even happier about choosing Kensington over Park Avenue.
It is almost impossible to imagine the case against Black being brought in a British court, let alone a Canadian one, by even the most aggressive shareholder activist. What happened to Black is the result of a freakish set of circumstances, most of them beyond his control.
And some eminent Americans are now arguing that the law has become too stiff.
"Black got caught up in intensified Justice Department white-collar criminal activity and he suffered for it," David Ruder, a former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, told the Associated Press.
"On an order of magnitude, this case |
|
 |
 |
|
| What happened to Black is the result of a freakish set of circumstances |
|
|
doesn't compare to Enron or WorldCom," said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor who now represents companies and individuals accused of white-collar crimes. "But it's another example of federal prosecutors aggressively pursuing a once-powerful CEO and successfully convincing jurors that his conduct amounted to an intentional fraud.
"This verdict is further evidence that jurors are still willing to dissect complex allegations and buy into the government's theories that tie the person at the very top of the corporate hierarchy to serious misconduct."
Even grander voices are questioning the current zeal for corporate prosecutions. The former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said recently that in their attempts to minimise shareholder risk, politicians had allowed "regulation, legislation or litigation outcomes whose cost in other areas greatly exceeds the benefit of risk reduction."
When Black decided to list Hollinger International on the New York Stock Exchange in 1996, it was years before Enron and Worldcom changed the popular mood  |
