Disparate results from overreaching prosecutions

kpmg logo42.jpgAmidst a busy summer day, I pass along a rare and quick afternoon post on disparate results emanating earlier today from a couple of cases involving overreaching prosecutions of businesspeople.
First, Peter Lattman (here and here), Dave Hoffman and Ellen Podgor are doing standout instant analysis of U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan’s opinion issued earlier today rapping the knuckles of the Department of Justice for threatening KPMG with indictment in the KPMG tax shelter case unless the firm shirked its policy of paying the defense costs of partners who were indicted for work performed in the course of the firm’s tax shelter business (background posts here and here). As Professor Hoffman notes, Judge Kaplan is not ready to dismiss the indictment as the remedy for the prosecutorial abuse, so it appears that KPMG will be left holding the bag for the not insubstantial costs arising from the improper prosecutorial strongarming. That would not seem to be much of a deterrent for a prosecutor to engage in such tactics in the future, but maybe dismissal will be the remedy next time around when prosecutors engage in this sort of nonsense.
Natwest three14.jpgMeanwhile, following on this post from last week, the three former National Westminster Bank PLC bankers who Enron Task Force prosecutors are attempting to extradite to Houston to face criminal charges (previous posts here) lost their final appeal to halt or postpone the extradition as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg rejected their request for a stay pending disposition of their appeal to that body. It is now likely that the NatWest Three will be extradited to Houston next month and detained in the Federal Detention Center in downtown Houston as they attempt to prepare for a trial in an unusually hostile environment.
You can bet that the Task Force’s reliance on a treaty of tenuous applicability to extradite the NatWest Three to a holding cell in downtown Houston is being followed closely by business interests in the UK. Is this really the way we want the US criminal justice system to be perceived internationally?

Leave a Reply