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.”
Paul
I stated in the article that the decision was overturned on appeal.
The United Corporations of America, the New Oligarchy.
Fining a corporation as a form of punishment to encourage the prevention of these crimes is a joke, as well as an ill directed shot. The money is either absorbed or given back in the form of tax write offs or other accounting magic. Corporations factor in these costs.
The only effective way to stop or slow down these activities is to imprison, in a run of the mill prison not a ‘camp’, the perpetrators. The most accurate way to identify a perpetrator is to follow the power structure to the top. If the CEO of Halliburton was jailed for an appropriate sentence, perhaps ten years, I find it hard to believe that the message would be ignored. Dick Cheney in jail for ten years, now I think that might make a statement.
The corporation could easily replace the CEO. However, the new guy might be a little more careful. Monetary damages are simply the cost of doing business. Time spent behind bars is by far the more effective shot across the bow.
Steve, the truth is that JT has admonished commenters to not dredge up past disagreements.
No actually it’s not funny at all, but creepy.
Darren Smith
Does anyone doubt money is a big motivator for our government? There are too many ties between the government and large companies.
= = =
Like this?
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/507888530987970560
LOL!
Will the personal attacks never cease? I have just as much right to express my opinion and to comment as I see fit as any other individual who frequents this blog…without having comments made about me. It appears some people are obsessed with and remain fixated on me even though I am no longer a weekend contributor.
rafflaw – missed that part of the article. My bad.
A dog is more human than a Corporation…
… Cut the dog and it bleeds.
Cut the Corporation… profit losses.
Steve H, I don’t want to tie this threads up. Go through the archives, prior Jan 2014. They speak for themselves. Then read some of the contentious threads in Jan 2014. Some far left Guest Bloggers left during that tumultuous month. The echo chamber was dismantled by JT. He took a lot of grief over that, and still does. Now, we have a great mix. The former ruling class don’t like it. That’s understandable. Teachers don’t like the positive changes being made in education to make schools student centered. Teachers liked having free reign. Just like the Guest Bloggers here did. Life is always about control. The best situations are always when there’s balance, something we now have. The vast majority love balance. Those on both extremes loathe it. They want to control everything. Ironically, by telling you to read the archives I’m telling you to do the work, like raff just did.
It’s just much easier to arrest and indict poor people.
Individual Halliburton employee perpetrators should be found guilty and suffer the penalty. The corporation should pay the fine.
Holder, subsequent to being found in Contempt of Congress related to the brilliant demonstration of Holder’s raw intellect and apolitical strategy, “Fast and Furious,” an abuse of power to nullify the Constitution and adversely affect the 2nd Amendment, should be tried, convicted and sentenced.
Hillary and Obama should be tried for multiple high crimes and misdemeanors, among them the dereliction, negligence and willful manipulation and destruction of evidence in the Benghazi debacle and IRS abuse events, featuring the colossally guilty, “I’ll take the 5th,” archetypal femi-nazi, Frau Lois Lerner.
Nick S: I’m intrigued by your comments that imply that before January this blog was (too) heavily influenced by people with strong liberal biases. Details, please.
No one here indicated that both sides weren’t complicit in accepting corporate money, did they?
Rafflaw, I’m not asking you to “do all the work” for me, I’m just asking you to explain/justify some of your comments and data. Still, I’m on your side on this: the Justice Dept is incompetent.
Both parties have the corporations they love to fatten up. You know, the ones who donate. But like Aridog and Darren states, some huge corporations get pork from both parties.
Darren…sorry, I posted before I noticed your remark….
Does anyone doubt money is a big motivator for our government? There are too many ties between the government and large companies.
All I can say, from experience, is Amen. And it is through BOTH parties, not just one. The Bunny Greenhouse story is an apt example of how this linkage corrupts good people. The players in that fiasco date back to the Nixon White House. BTW…Ms Greenhouse finally did win her lawsuit against the government. Initially she’d not have objected to contracts issued no bid for emergency purposes. I’ve been part to that in emergency responses when we needed sand bags and needed them now…and went with the high bidder who had the trucks to deliver in 24 hours, not a week later. We did not, however, issue that same winning bidder a 5 year contract … essentially how the Greenhouse difference Halliburton (and the Executive Branch of Bush43) began….and got worse as auditors found out. The malaise of acquisition nonsense took over in Iraq very quickly…an example: a shredding machine that was $179 from DLA-Philadelphia, had to be ordered from some bum-f office supply guy in Kuwait who had a contract with KBR for around $1200. Never mind federal acquisition law or 48 CFR aka “The FAR” …which mandated use of the DLA outlets in Part 8 and Part 208 DFARS.
There is no question that the ties are too great by magnitudes of 100X.
Steve H.,
I can’t do all of the work for you. Until the settlement is fully disclosed, we won’t know if it is fully tax deductible. The last item about Arthur Andersen was written by the law professor that I linked to and quoted. The Justice Department could go after individual employees and/or the supervisors for their parts, and it would not turn into an Arthur Anderson type situation.
rafflaw – wasn’t the Arthur Anderson decision overturned?
Ari, You know the meme, CHENEY = Halliburton. Cheney is a bogeyman w/ the old folks here.
What surprises me is that anyone thinks that corporations like Halliburton are not tied to BOTH political parties tight as can be….especially to and through the military. If you want to see just how tight, look up the Bunnatine Greenhouse story, for a small sample, but skip the now heavily redacted and abbreviated Wikipedia version. I was acquainted with Bunny Greenhouse long ago and her story is straight up.