Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
I guess I should not be surprised anymore, but it still saddens me to read that our old friend, Halliburton, has pled guilty to destroying evidence concerning their participation in the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and the subsequent environmental disaster in 2010. If they pled guilty why should I be upset? I am upset that the Department of Justice agreed to a $1.1 Billion fine instead of jail time. Once again a corporate “citizen” has committed a crime and no one is going to jail.
I understand the costs involved in taking a case of this magnitude to trial, in order to press for prison time for the culpable officers. However, if this had been an individual would the Justice Department have balked at trying to get a conviction and jail time? I am not the only one concerned with the Justice Department’s soft handling of corporate criminals.
“David Uhlmann, an University of Michigan environmental law professor and former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section, said the settlement raises questions about the absence of criminal charges against the company.
“Halliburton did not admit negligence in today’s settlement but the fact that they agreed to pay over $1 billion raises anew questions about why the Justice Department did not charge the company criminally for its role in causing the Gulf oil spill,” Uhlmann said in an email reply to USA TODAY questions about the settlement.” Reader Supported News
I can’t blame Halliburton for working to get a fine instead of jail time, but how can we stop corporate criminals from breaking the law in the future when the worst case scenario for them is the payment of a fine that could be tax-deductible? Halliburton was also looking at more serious financial uncertainty if it had not reached a settlement because of its role in the Deepwater Horizon fiasco and would have had to deal with the multiple BP claimants. Wouldn’t that give the Justice Department more bargaining power to insist on some jail time?
“With the agreement, Halliburton removes itself from future liability regarding legal claims filed on behalf of thousands of fishermen, business owners and others who said their lives and livelihoods were ruined by the spill.
“Halliburton wanted out,” said LeCesne. “Since their failed cement mixture is a the epicenter of culpability in this incident, they didn’t want to take any further chances.”‘ RSN
This is not the first time that a corporate “person” has committed crimes and only had to face a fine. We have seen it in the numerous Banks who have bought their way out of criminal liability. What will it take for the Justice Department to actually push for a criminal penalty in these corporate bad actor cases?
Shouldn’t a corporation that has allegedly committed crimes run the same risk as any individual when it comes to going to jail for those crimes? This problem of allowing corporations to buy their way out of criminal prosecutions is not a new issue. According to one Harvard Law Professor, Brandon Garrett, it started after the prosecution of the Arthur Anderson case in 2002 and after the conviction was overturned on appeal, prosecutors have been hesitant to go for criminal penalties in corporate cases.
“Federal prosecutors cemented their current approach to corporate prosecutions following the Arthur Andersen trial, which took place in 2002, and which I describe in the book—the jury convicted Andersen, resulting in the collapse of the company, but the conviction was then reversed on appeal. Fearful of the backlash should more high-profile cases end in disaster, prosecutors decided to allow more companies to avoid a conviction by entering deferred and non-prosecution agreements. Those deals took off in 2003, and they first caught my attention in 2006, when just a few dozen had been entered. The new approach was firmly in place when the financial crisis hit in 2007, and perhaps as a result, some companies may have felt they could settle prosecutions as a cost of doing business.” Harvard University Press Blog
Whatever reasons the Department of Justice is relying upon to push for civil fines instead of going for criminal convictions, the result stated by Prof. Garrett above would seem to be an easy decision for large corporations. Pay some money and walk away from the crimes. With the Department of Justice playing softball on corporate crime, why should the large corporations change their ways? As you may recall, Bank of America has been cited at least 6 separate times and no one has yet gone to jail. Time for a change in the Justice Department’s approach, don’t you think?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Let me get this straight large criminal combinations, they used to be called mobs, employe thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people. Does that mean mob bosses who commit or order that crimes be committed should go to jail. Should the judge consider that sending the boss to jail might make his family business collapse and put all of those made men etc out of work. I have heard to many corporations who killed people with their poisons plead for mercy because of all the jobs they provide. That’s should not be a defense to wrong doing.
Shredding or destroying documents is a criminal offense. I am sure the “clerk” didn’t make the decision to destroy the documents. In fact, I doubt that the clerk knew what it was he or she was destroying. The CEO and the rest of the gang should go to jail; that would change conduct pretty quickly.
Putting aside all the “Halliburton must be guilty since they are evil, just like Cheney” leftist rhetoric, I have a few questions about the facts stated in the article.
1. Are fines paid by a company to settle a Federal lawsuit really “tax deductible”? Rafflaw says they “could be tax-deductible.” It’s like saying “[he] might be abusing his wife.”
2. When a company is “charged criminally”, are the legal fees to defend itself “tax deductible?”.
3. And if the company is convicted of a federal crime, how many of the stockholders, board members, and employees go to jail? Just the CEO? Or everyone from the CEO down to the clerk who actually destroyed the evidence?
4. Lastly, I’d like some explanation of the phrase “led to the collapse of the company” (i.e., Andersen). Does that mean the company went out of business, resulting in the firing of thousands of employees who had no part in any of it but were fired anyway? Careers destroyed; personal financial security ruined.
So are you suggesting that the collapse of Halliburton and the loss of jobs by its 80,000 employees is a more appropriate penalty?
So, since Halliburton is a tired meme, does that mean they aren’t guilty in their part of the Deepwater Horizon debacle? How about Iraq? Are the “non-liberals” here not at all distressed at troops who were killed due to Halliburton’s negligence? Since when is this a “liberal” meme? Perhaps some conservatives need to grow up as well.
JT is seriously committed to free speech, that’s the only reason he puts up some things, I suspect.
Halliburton didn’t shred documents, people working for Halliburton did. And they might be have directed to do so by higher ups.
Blame DOJ for prosecuting Halliburton not the employees. DOJ wanted a payday, not any form of justice.
Correction: This place was run by liberals prior to the changes in January.
I have to agree with others on here, the IRS is looking at this decision hopefully.
Elaine, You just came from an elite and hilarious echo chamber. This is a forum led by a person w/ intellectual honesty. He makes sure this place is NOT an echo chamber. JT made some tough decisions in January. Folks like yourself don’t like being challenged. I respect the people who came to realize that and set up a comfortable echo chamber for themselves. If an echo chamber is your bag, that’s fine. But, don’t come here and whine. The left and right battle it out here. This is a great place now. If the fact that non liberals don’t run this place like they used to bothers you, file your complaints in the corrections section or w/ JT personally. “Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton” is just a stale meme. I go after corporate welfare although the time. I just don’t abide boring, lazy meme stuff from the left or right.
Sometimes you wonder if Haliburton & others are more in charge than the government. Certainly they work for and are approved by the Illuminati. They get a slap on the wrist only because they are in the inner sanctum and needed by the bad guys.
Jail??? I am all for bringing back the guillotine for these corporate criminals.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Does anyone doubt money is a big motivator for our government? There are too many ties between the government and large companies.
Not only is the government afraid of Haliburton, they’re afraid of the Kochs and other mega billionaires that have essentially bought the government.
Rafflaw,
Some folks can’t bear it when you write posts about the illegal or unethical behavior of corporate “persons.” Are you trying to start trouble on the Turley blog? The right-wing echo chamber will be out in force to castigate you.
The President, the Justice Department and the IRS are not Haliburton. They are not powerful enough.
Corporations are supposed to be people but they never go to jail. People died because of this criminal act yet no one will go to jail. If a human had destroyed documents in a case wherein people died you can be sure they would go to jail but these “people” get to hide behind the corporate veil and kill and maime and destroy and all they have to do is pay out money and compared to their profits very little money. The government is afraid of Haliburton.
And guess what happens to corporate criminals in China?
If Citizens United granted them the rights of individuals and real people, should they not be as culpable as any real person? Subject to the same laws and liabilities, and risking criminal jail time as well?
It truly does seem like corporations get to have their cake and eat it to doesn’t it?
Some people who worked for Halliburton that were responsible for the electrocution deaths of our military members in Afghanstan and Iraq should be siting in jail as we speak. How about the Halliburton employees that sold dirty water to the military that caused skin sores on our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? Maybe no jail, but they should not have been given any military contracts after that. I know several of several Wall Street bankers/crooks that should be sitting behind bars also.
Slamming Halliburton. Great boilerplate meme.
Gene,
The obvious response is that Congress has the chance to impeach the President if they think they have “misdeeds” that amount to high crimes and misdemeanors.
Larry, that may be true of the Pres, IF they could get the votes, AND the “crimes” were bad enough to warrant the designation of “High Crimes”. I happen to agree with you that these individuals should face jail time, but so should government employees that break the law. It appears that only soft targets are to be made made examples of, like Martha Stewart.
That would set an unpleasant precedent since we might expect government employees that commit the same types of misdeeds to also face jail time. Let’s start with the President and The Justice Department and the IRS.