Get a load of this press release (hat tip Ellen Podgor) from the Department of Justice heralding the five year anniversary of the DOJ’s Corporate Fraud Task Force.

Here is the press release’s description of the Task Force’s accomplishments in connection with its investigation into the demise of Enron:

Criminal charges were brought against 36 defendants, including 27 former Enron Corporation executives. Eighteen of those charged pleaded guilty or were found guilty after trial, including Enron’s former chief executive officer, who was sentenced to 292 months in prison. The guilty verdicts against the former chairman/CEO in two cases were dismissed by abatement following his death. The Task Force seized over $100 million in ill-gotten gains and the Department of Justice worked jointly with the Securities and Exchange Commission to obtain orders directing the recovery of more than $450 million for the victims of the Enron frauds.

What parallel universe are these people living in? Here is the harsh reality of the Task Force’s legacy in regard to the Enron criminal cases:

The Enron Task Force procured a deeply flawed conviction that put the nail in the coffin of one of the oldest and most respected U.S. accounting firms, costing tens of thousands of jobs in communities and wealth loss to individuals throughout the nation. Later, the head of the Task Force expressed an appallingly arrogant “end justifies the means” regarding the wrongful prosecution of Andersen and other Enron-related cases;

Then, the Task Force ruthlessly ruined the careers of four respected former Merrill Lynch executives and sent them to prison for a year before the Fifth Circuit overturned that atrocity. That prosecution included a disingenuous market loss argument in connection with the sentencings of the four executives, an argument that contradicted the Justice Department’s position at the time in a case involving the same issue that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

After two trials, the Task Force finally obtained a conviction against former Enron Broadband executive Kevin Howard, only to have that conviction tossed out (the Task Force is appealing that decision). After the latter trial, the Task Force characterized as “harmless error” strong evidence of misconduct during jury deliberations.

For the past two years, Task Force lawyers have been attempting to patch something together to make a case against Howard’s former co-defendants in the Enron Broadband case that the Task Force has already lost once. In connection with that first Enron Broadband trial, the Task Force’s threatened two defense witnesses (here and here) in an attempt to induce them not to testify, elicited false testimony from former Enron executive Ken Rice, the Task Force’s key witness in that trial, and a Task Force prosecutor violated the judge’s instruction during trial not to question witnesses on certain subjects.

The Fifth Circuit — even before the appeal briefs have been filed — has opined that “serious frailties” exist in the conviction of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, and the stress associated with mounting a defense to the Task Force’s questionable case against former Enron chairman Ken Lay almost certainly contributed to his death.

Serious questions remain as the validity of the Task Force’s controversial prosecution of the NatWest Three, an ordeal for those men that is now entering its fifth year for those defendants.

The Task Force obtained a highly dubious indictment against former Enron mid-level executive Christopher Calger (the prosecutor handling the plea bargain hearing could not even articulate Calger’s crime to the judge who took the plea), and Calger’s later renunciation of the plea deal exposed several dirty secrets of the Task Force, particularly the bludgeoning of former Enron executives into plea bargains.

The Task Force engaged in a highly prejudicial and inflammatory public relations campaign demonizing anyone and anything having to do with Enron.

The Task Force engaged in a dubious tactic of fingering potential defense witnesses as either unindicted co-conspirators or targets of the Enron criminal investigation to deter those witnesses from testifying for defendants in the Enron criminal trials.

Strong evidence exists that the Task Force threatened witnesses with indictment (see also here and here) if they testified for the defense in the Lay-Skilling trial.

The Task Force’s tactics have had a negative impact on such fundamental rights as the attorney-client privilege, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, not to speak of the negative effect on creation of wealth and jobs.

Meanwhile, many of the Task Force lawyers who contributed to making this mess have moved on to lucrative careers outside of government.

In light of the foregoing, rather than extolling the Corporate Fraud Task Force’s accomplishments, wouldn’t it be a more productive exercise to examine the cost of the Task Force and its actions relative to the value of its benefits?

Over at Point of Law.com, Moin Yahya, Assistant Professor of Law Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta, is dissecting the prosecution against Conrad Black (earlier posts here) in a series of posts, the first two of which are here and here. Unless you are in favor of the expansion of federal criminal power, his findings are troubling. Take, for example, the obstruction of justice charge against Lord Black:

One of the charges that the prosecution added against Black was obstruction of justice. This charge was added at the last minute and was not in the initial indictment. The charge related to the fact that Black removed boxes of documents from the offices of Hollinger Inc. (which was the parent company of Hollinger International the American company based in Chicago). The order not to remove the boxes had been issued by a Canadian judge in Toronto. (As an aside, wouldnít a simple contempt of court charge have sufficed?)
What jurisdiction did the United States have over Black for an event that took place on foreign soil? Putting aside the question of whether the prosecution already had these documents, so it is not clear that his removal obstructed any investigation; the more important and troubling aspect of this case is the creeping federalization of American law not just inside the United States but abroad. [. . .]
But now, will Congress seek to regulate the conduct of Americans and American corporations all over the world? . . . [A]s we have seen before, the courts cannot seem to find that magic bright line to constrain Congress . . . Today Congress regulates sex tourism, truly a noble cause, but tomorrow what else will it decide on. Will it outlaw dog-fighting in foreign lands? Will Congress criminalize paying workers in developing countries less than the minimum wage in the United States? Will Congress criminalize not following the mandates of Sarbanes-Oxley even if the American company is only listed on a foreign exchange? What then will be the result? The answer depends on your view of whether federalism is good or bad. If the growth of Congressional power concerns you, then these latest cases should cause you more concern; if not, then not.

Update: Professor Yahya’s third segment is here.
By the way, it sounds as if Houston business executive and philanthropist Dan Duncan is getting a dose of what Professor Yahya is talking about:

A 2002 big game hunting trip in Siberia could bring big trouble for Houston billionaire Dan Duncan.
The 74-year-old founder of pipeline giant Enterprise Products Partners may face criminal charges following his appearance Wednesday before a grand jury in Houston, where he answered questions about the trip he and other hunters took with Russian guides.
During the trip, Duncan shot and killed a moose and a sheep while riding in a helicopter, a practice Duncan said he did not know was illegal in Russia. Neither animal was considered endangered, he said.
Russian officials were aware of the hunting expedition ó Duncan’s attorney Rusty Hardin said the guide on the trip is now a top official with the Russian Federation’s hunting licensing agency ó but there were no complaints or charges filed in that country.
Hardin said prosecutors from Washington, D.C., may use the Lacey Act, a 107-year-old law designed to prevent the interstate and international trafficking of rare plants and animals, to bring felony criminal charges against Duncan. If found guilty he could face jail time, Hardin said.
“What the hell is the U.S. interest in bringing felony charges here for hunting on Russian soil, where not one single person has complained?” Hardin said Wednesday. “Is this really the best use of our prosecutorial resources?”

Read the entire article.