OT Haim, Okay, I read the court decision.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but do have an office full of law books on a very narrow part of the Code. I would note that the Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded it to them for further consideration. My gut feel is that the dudes made a nice try, but were guilty as sin.
The case was dealing with Section 1014 which criminalizes "knowingly mak[ing] any false statement or report . . . for the purpose of influencing in any way the action" of an FDIC insured bank "upon any application, advance, . . . commitment, or loan." I would note that this has nothing to do with the manner of dress, or dealings with a government agent.
As I read the facts the dudes 1) provided the financial institution with customer contracts that did not reflect the relationship with the customer, and 2) committed forgery. Will forget the fact that a jury of their peers found them guilty as sin, and they were trying to argue a novel, but, alas, rejected argument before the Court that the law should reflect a word, even though not contained in the law.
Again, I ask, how the hell do you jump the canyon from this case to a company providing a financial institution with the financial statements that are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles? You may disagree with the adequacy of these principles, but tilting wind mills is of little benefit.
Berney |
