83 year old Houston oilman Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr. ended an ordeal that could have resulted in a life prison sentence yesterday when he agreed to plead guilty (Chron stories here and here) to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in the middle of his ongoing trial in New York City. Wyatt was on trial over charges that he corrupted the United Nationís oil-for-food program by paying paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal kickbacks to Saddam Husseinís regime in 2001 (prior posts here).
Wyatt faces a probable prison sentence of between 18 and 24 months on the one count and he also agreed to forfeit $11 million. The four charges that were dropped in exchange for the guilty plea included conducting financial transactions with an enemy nation (Iraq) and violating a United States embargo on Iraq. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 27.
My sense is that Wyatt cut a reasonably good deal under the circumstances, or at least as good as any deal can be that likely will require a prison sentence. The government had already cut deals with a series of witnesses who had agreed to testify against Wyatt and — let’s face it — it’s hard to think of a less popular criminal defendant in New York City than a wealthy Texas oilman who openly criticized the U.S. State Department’s traditional Middle Eastern policy of supporting Israel. Moreover, although dozens of companies and individuals were cited in the Volcker Report on the scandal-ridden oil-for-food program, it was clear that the Department of Justice was going to make Wyatt the poster boy for the corrupt U.N. program. As Jeff Skilling discovered (see here, here and here), it’s tough enough fighting against the government’s overwhelming prosecutorial power. It’s virtually impossible to defend criminal charges effectively when the government overlays the prosecution with demonization of the defendant.
Ellen Podgor provides insight on the dynamics that may have triggered the deal.