SirFozzie
08-28-2008, 07:38 PM
Let's put it this way.. I DARE you to find a jury of 12 men and women, that you couldn't sit down, explain that these folks had broken the rules for wealthy, well-heeled, more money then they ever could use people and cost the average tax payer $2.5 BILLION dollars, and not get a conviction out of them. They went too gungho, and paid the price for it.
There's a line in here that's absolutely priceless as well.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2830999820080828?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
A U.S. appeals court has upheld the dismissal of criminal charges against 13 former executives at KPMG, saying prosecutors violated the defendants' rights by pressuring the accounting firm not to pay their legal bills.
The ruling on Thursday came the same day the U.S. Justice Department announced new guidelines to rein in prosecutors' tactics in corporate crime cases that had been criticized by some politicians and business groups.
Critics have accused the government of going too far to press companies to cooperate in criminal probes or else risk indictment, such as demanding that businesses waive attorney-client privilege or stop paying attorney fees for employees under investigation.
The case landed in federal appeals court after U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan, who is overseeing the criminal case, ruled in July 2007 that prosecutors violated the constitutional rights of 13 defendants.
The government tried to revive the case against them, arguing that it had not pressured KPMG to refrain from paying the legal fees and that -- if it had violated any legal rights of the defendants -- it had done so only temporarily.
The appeals court, however, said that the government "unjustifiably interfered with defendants' relationship with counsel and their ability to mount a defense." The only remedy, the court said in its ruling, was to dismiss the charges.
The former KPMG partners and others were accused of helping to cheat the government of $2.5 billion by creating improper tax shelters for wealthy clients and concealing them from the Internal Revenue Service. KPMG itself was not a defendant, agreeing in 2005 to pay $456 million to settle a federal probe.
There's a line in here that's absolutely priceless as well.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2830999820080828?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
A U.S. appeals court has upheld the dismissal of criminal charges against 13 former executives at KPMG, saying prosecutors violated the defendants' rights by pressuring the accounting firm not to pay their legal bills.
The ruling on Thursday came the same day the U.S. Justice Department announced new guidelines to rein in prosecutors' tactics in corporate crime cases that had been criticized by some politicians and business groups.
Critics have accused the government of going too far to press companies to cooperate in criminal probes or else risk indictment, such as demanding that businesses waive attorney-client privilege or stop paying attorney fees for employees under investigation.
The case landed in federal appeals court after U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan, who is overseeing the criminal case, ruled in July 2007 that prosecutors violated the constitutional rights of 13 defendants.
The government tried to revive the case against them, arguing that it had not pressured KPMG to refrain from paying the legal fees and that -- if it had violated any legal rights of the defendants -- it had done so only temporarily.
The appeals court, however, said that the government "unjustifiably interfered with defendants' relationship with counsel and their ability to mount a defense." The only remedy, the court said in its ruling, was to dismiss the charges.
The former KPMG partners and others were accused of helping to cheat the government of $2.5 billion by creating improper tax shelters for wealthy clients and concealing them from the Internal Revenue Service. KPMG itself was not a defendant, agreeing in 2005 to pay $456 million to settle a federal probe.