'Burglars use crowbars, robbers guns. He used memos and lies'
The prosecutors at the trial of Conrad Black have labelled him a common thief, insisting that he used arcane financial documents rather than crowbars and guns to steal $60 million, but that this was all the distinction between himself and your everyday burglar.
In the opening statements of the trial in Chicago, assistant US attorney Jeffrey Cramer told the jury that Black had lied and stolen to prop up his position and to help finance his extraordinary lifestyle.
He then went on to describe Lord Black's beginnings in the 70s and 80s as a local newspaper owner in Canada and America."Bank robbers are masked and they use guns. Burglars wear dark clothing and use crowbars. These men dressed in ties and wore a suit," said Mr Cramer, gesturing towards Lord Black and his co-defendants Jack Boultbee, Mark Kipnis, and Peter Atkinson, "they do it with memos and documents and a few lies".
He added: "You sit in a room with four men who stole $60m (£30.6m). Four men who betrayed the trust of thousands of ordinary shareholders. Four men who decided that their multi-million-dollar salaries were not enough."
Then he described the circumstances in which the theft took place.
Black's defence have used their opening statement to insist that this is not a story about Black stealing, it is rather the story of Black being stolen from.The theft began, according to prosecutors, when Lord Black's Hollinger empire was struggling under a burden of debt in 1998. Lord Black and his colleagues shrunk the company by selling its 400 smaller papers, but wanted to keep up the lifestyles of multinational company executives. "These four were literally working themselves out of a job," said Mr Cramer. "They decided they would take proceeds from each and every sale, and put it in their pockets." Each time a paper was sold, Lord Black and his conspirators persuaded buyers to pay them millions in "non-compete" agreements not disclosed to Hollinger's board.
"It's like street crime. A guy walks down the street, knocks you down, and takes your wallet. There's no difference but you're doing it with memos, documents and a few lies," said Mr Cramer, who stressed that the shareholders investing for "pensions and college funds" were the victims. Meanwhile, Lord Black billed the company for personal expenditure including a $500,000 holiday on Hollinger's private plane to Bora Bora. On a customs form on his return to the US, Lord Black ticked a box to indicate a personal, rather than business, trip.
At the heart of this case will be Lord Black charging private trips to his company, essentially making shareholders pay for his holidays, etc. The defence gave the first indication yesterday into how they plan to defend against such charges.
Black is arguing that all the non-compete agreements were either approved by the board or negotiated without his knowledge by David Radler, his long term business partner who has pled guilty to fraud.There were security reasons for Lord Black to travel on a corporate jet: his high-profile support for America and Israel could make him a terrorist target, according to Mr Genson. As for putting a $60,000 birthday party for his wife on expenses, the event was a networking opportunity with Donald Trump, Henry Kissinger, Michael Bloomberg and newscaster Peter Jennings among the guests. Emphasising Lord Black's financial acumen, Mr Genson said his client had bought the Telegraph titles for $30m and sold them a decade later for $1.4bn.
"In his native Canada and England, he's a household name; you're hard pressed to find anyone who didn't hear of him," Mr Genson told the jury, although he admitted that his client was fond of a "rhetorical" style which sometimes made him sound "arrogant" and "snotty".
And by warning the jury that Black's "rhetorical" style makes him sound "arrogant" and "snotty", council are clearly keeping open the possibility that he might have to go into the witness box and preparing the jury for his manner in case he has to do so.
The case continues.
Click title for full article.
2 comments:
"In his native Canada and England, he's a household name; you're hard pressed to find anyone who didn't hear of him,"
Mr Black choose lawyers who are as arrogant as him. One of his lawyers angered the judge when he made declarations before the trial began to the NYT about having to be certified as an 'idiot' in a US court. He was mocking the fact that he has to go through a process of certification as a Canadian in order to defend Balck in a US court.
As for Balck being a household name here in Canada, it is only among the elite, not the people. He, like Ignatief, left Canada to live in the 'center of the British Empire' and is trying now to regain his Canadian citizenship (he had to lose it in order to become a lord) and so he is making the reverse insult of wanting to come back to Canada probably for reasons related to his future sentence.
As for the metaphor used to explain to the jury the non-compete paiement, his lawyers have given on emore reason to the shareholders to be angry because they explained that it is normal that Mr. Black took money personally for this becuse He Is The Man who Made The Sold Business What It Is. Of course, not workers, not shareholders...
The arrogance of the man is beyond belief. There are emails in which, when shareholders wanted an investigation into his dodgy dealings, he states that he is "not prepared to re-enact the French revolutionary renunciation of the rights of the nobility... We are proprieters after all, beleaguered as we may be".
He later refers to an "Epidemic of shareholder idiocy".
What I hadn't realised until this morning is that the prosecution is being overseen by Fitzgerald of Scooter Libby fame.
Post a Comment