Courts, Criminal law, Justice, Lawyering, Politics

Halliburton Commits Crimes and Gets a Fine

220px-HalliburtonNorthHouston

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.”

279 thoughts on “Halliburton Commits Crimes and Gets a Fine”

  1. “Ralph Nader has been talking about the duopoly rigged game for decades.”

    I always admired him for that. The problem is that on illegal immigration and everything else he’s a hard core leftist.

  2. Yes, its funny how the Democrats always pose as being against the “Corporate fat cats” but never seem to be just as much in their pocket as the Republicans. The only way to change the situation is to change the campaign finance laws and get term limits. Of course, no one is interested in either.

  4. I am so fokin tired of reading Nick’s attacks. I’ve tried to not read his crap but he is alllllll over the place. He is uncivil, repeatedly, on every thread. He wins again. Another notch on his belt. I’m leaving. Disgusted.

  7. I HATE S’mores!! We have beach campfires on the beach in San Diego all the time. I buy all the stuff and most everyone loves them. I know I’m in the minority, so I keep my mouth shut and even help the kids cook their marshmallows. They’re too sticky and sweet for me. I always buy a bag of M&M peanuts, a little protein w/ the sweet.

  11. Steve H.,

    I’m not so sure that the Justice Department is incompetent. I think the main problem is that it has decided not to put banksters and corporate criminals in jail.

    1. Since the Justice Dept won’t go after Holder, who is too big to fail, how can they go after anybody else? They have to go after low hanging fruit, like the Ferguson PD.

    1. They are letting sex offender off the hook by allowing them to apologize to their victims, so why shouldn’t Halliburton get off with a fine? Besides, the govt needs the money.

  13. I would bet a C note our intelligence agencies have been helping US Corporations for a long time. And, as I’ve said here previously, I bet even more money the NSA data is bought by people, politicians, companies, etc. Naïve to think otherwise. You can always buy govt. people, and they come cheap.

  15. happypappies
    It used to be… commit the crime, DO the TIME.

    Too big to fail gave us: commit the crime, PAY the FINE.

  16. Max-1

    Yes I read about that and it was just as disturbing as it was not surprising.

  17. The question I have is why were they allowed to drill in 5,000′ of water to begin with when they could have drilled closer to shore in shallower water?

    I have read that it was because of envinronmental regulations. Isnt some of the blame on the environmentalists who push improper regulations on to companies?

  18. Isn’t there almost a collective unconscious meme in our culture that says if you commit an environmental crime it’s okay if you pay the fine?

    I mean that poetry is nowhere as good as Squeaky’s but I wasn’t trying it just came out that way

  20. Isaac, The duopoly will never allow harsh penalties for corporation officers. They’re the people who give them campaign $’s. It’s a rigged game. Ralph Nader has been talking about the duopoly rigged game for decades.

Comments are closed.