The unfair conviction of Conrad Black

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by kazenatsu, May 17, 2019.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,210
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conrad Black controls several news publications, including The Daily Telegraph and the National Post in Canada.

    He was convicted of fraud and sentenced to 42 months in prison and a fine.

    However, in his book "Tilted: The Trials of Conrad Black", author Steven Skurka argues that Conrad Black was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced even though what he did was not really wrong or illegal.

    How could this happen? Was it just widespread negligence on the part of all the judges involved? Could they have had a political bent against him since he ran Conservative news publications? Or is it just a case of an unethical prosecutor presenting the evidence in such a way as to intentionally misrepresent it in front of the judge to win a conviction?

    Steven Skurka wrote in his book that it would be the right thing to do for President Trump to issue a pardon, and indeed this is what ended up happening.

    But Black had to spend 42 months in prison, and the parent company combined with some of Black's associates incurred over $200 million from the legal expenses as a result of the investigation.

    Black had been guilty of a technicality. In the course of his business dealings he had accepted a $285,000 non-competition payment that was approved by the independent director and publicly disclosed, but the company secretary had neglected to sign off on it, in what even the judge believed was a clerical error.
    $285,000 was a tiny amount compared to Black's other dealings in the company.

    It looks like the prosecutor investigated and trawled through all of Black's business dealings looking for any mistakes that could potentially be prosecuted.

    There's much more unfairness than that which had initially gone on.
    Initially, the prosecution had accused him of $100 million of fraud, without really any adequate evidence, and the judge had initially set the bail amount at $38 million.
    This was finally later reduced to $2 million before the trial.

    And Black was still found guilty even after appealing the sentence, although several of the criminal counts were dismissed, the fines were reduced, and his original 6½ year sentence was reduced to a 37 month sentence.
    There had also been a $6.1 million fine to the SEC, that was reduced to $4.1 million after the appeal.

    Of course none of the judges or prosecutors will ever be held to account for their misconduct and bad decisions.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019

Share This Page