Skip to main content

Guilty Defendants (You know who you are) The Best Defense May not be the Most Expensive

Floyd Norris of the New York Times recently posted in his Notions on High and Low Finance blog an excellent commentary about Jeff Skilling’s $70 million defense in the Enron fraud in a post entitled “The Worthless $70 million Defense.”

He wrote in part:

“Jeffrey Skilling’s $70 million defense got him 24 years in prison and an order to forfeit $24 million.”

With regards to other corporate scandals he wrote:

“HealthSouth and CUC International, admitted there was a scandal, but insisted they were victims of crooked subordinates. Sometimes the defense worked, sometimes it did not.”

I posted the following thoughts on his blog in response to his commentary:

My Comment and Advice to Guilty Defendants (You Know Who You Are):

The exposed criminal’s “best defense that money can buy” is the truth. A person must take full responsibility for their actions and hold themselves fully accountable without any excuse. They should never rationalize their criminal conduct.

About 20 years ago after 18 years involvement in the massive fraud at Crazy Eddie’s and an additional two years spent obstructing justice and covering up my crimes and others from the government I decided to “cooperate” for the purely selfish reason of avoiding a very long prison sentence.

I cooperated for 4 years thereafter and was the main witness in the criminal trial and five years later in the SEC civil trial.

During my initial 4 years of cooperation (which included over a thousand meetings and discussions) with government investigators and the US Attorney my lawyer was never present (except my initial meeting) and I had no benefit of any legal protection whatsoever. I finally signed a plea agreement after 4 years which was amended at the request of the government twice to increase my criminal exposure.

My sentencing Judge received only 5 letters – 2 from the government and 3 from attorneys representing crime victims. There was none of the usual letters from friends, relatives, and community members.

My sentencing guidelines exposure was 5 years incarceration and the US Attorney recommended 2 years jail time. My statement to the Judge was simple, “I am embarrassed to say I knew what I did was wrong when I did it.”

I never went to prison and my criminal defense cost me far less than any of the criminal defendants mentioned directly or indirectly above in Mr. Norris’s commentary.

While you may disagree with this “law and order” Republican appointed Judge’s decision regarding my admittedly light sentence the fact is that he took into account the truthfulness of my testimony, the fact that I made no excuses, the fact the I used no handler’s (attorneys) in making myself fully accessible to both criminal and civil plaintiff investigators and most of all the fact that I was willing to risk everything (by having no legal protection for 4 years) in helping the government and civil plaintiffs obtain justice.

Everyone has a right to a legal defense. However, I caution the guilty (you know who you are), from my own experience as an admitted venomous criminal it is far better to settle earlier and take responsibility and put it all behind you than to build wings to law firms.

There is a saying among criminals, “some lawyers will defend you to your last dollar.”

Every dollar you save in legal fees and resources you save the prosecutors and civil plaintiffs reduces the damages to your victims and their suffering.

If you are guilty, it is far better to face the mercy of the Court than its anger.

Respectfully,

Sam E. Antar (Former Crazy Eddie CFO)
— Posted by Sam E. Antar

Link to Floyd Norris Post: “The Worthless $70 Million Defense.”

Comments

Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had …

Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that Overstock.com CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…