SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (3700)7/27/2002 7:08:54 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 5185
 


Bush Far Outspent Gore on Recount

washingtonpost.com

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 27, 2002; Page A04

The Bush campaign poured $13.8 million into winning the post-election
battle for Florida's 25 electoral college votes, roughly four times
what the Gore campaign spent, according to documents released yesterday.


The multiple reports to the Internal Revenue Service demonstrate the powerful fundraising
abilities of the Republican Party and President
Bush: Almost all the money was raised in contributions of $5,000 or less,
with gifts of less than $200 nearly equaling the total of $3.2 million
that Gore raised. Gore set no limits on the size of contributions.

The money was used to pay for lawyers who handled recount disputes in
counties across Florida, staffers who maintained what amounted to
a campaign operation through the month-long ordeal, and to finance
travel, food, hotels and hundreds of other expenses.

Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney recount drive, said there
was no legal obligation to release the more than 100-page
document and the decision to disclose it was taken voluntarily to mute any controversies.

"We don't think we have a legal obligation to file this," Ginsberg said, arguing
that the recount committee was set up as part of the
Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, eliminating any requirement to report
to the IRS. Under Federal Election Commission rules, he said, recount
funds do not have to be reported. "We still think we are exempt, but the truth is:
Why not take the issue off the table," he said.

Public Citizen, which advocates strong enforcement of election laws, said "the recount fund
created by the Bush-Cheney 2000 presidential campaign evaded a soft money campaign
finance disclosure law for 18 months and did not file required forms until the last day of an Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) 'amnesty' program for out-of-compliance groups."

If the recount committee had failed to meet the IRS amnesty deadline, it could have been
subject to fines of as much as $6.92 million,
according to Public Citizen.


The Gore-Lieberman Recount Committee never disputed its obligation to report receipts
and expenditures to the IRS, and its reports have
been available on the IRS Web site for more than a year.

The Gore-Lieberman campaign created what is known in IRS terminology
as a "527 committee." Such committees can receive unlimited gifts,
as opposed to a federal campaign committee, to which an individual
can only give $1,000. In 2000, Congress passed legislation requiring 527
committees to file publicly available reports with the IRS.

The Bush-Cheney Recount Fund is also a 527 committee.

The Bush money was used to pay huge bills for legal fees, telephone charges,
travel and hotel bills. Among the major payments were $1.2
million for salaries; $253,000 to AT&T, $385,000 to the Chicago law
firm Bartlit Bech Herman Palenchar, $237,000 to the Fort Lauderdale
firm Conrad & Scherer; $1.9 million to First USA Financial Services for hotel,
airplane and other charges; $892,000 to the Washington firm
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher; $433,000 to the Florida Republican Party.

In addition, the fund paid two controversial companies for the use of their jets:
Just over $13,000 to Enron Corp. and $2,400 to Halliburton
Co.


The Bush recount fund listed receipts of $9.4 million and expenditures of $13.8 million.
Ginsberg said the discrepancy was the result of the
fact that gifts of less than $200 do not have to be reported.

In contrast to the Bush-Cheney fund, the Gore-Lieberman committee
set no limits on the size of individual gifts. It took $500,000 from
philanthropist Steven Kirsch, $200,000 from Hollywood producer Stephen Bing
and $100,000 from actress Jane Fonda, along with
numerous gifts in the $25,000 to $100,000 range.

Some of the major payments made by the Gore-Lieberman committee include:
$308,000 to the Democratic polling firm run by Stan
Greenberg; $570,000 to the Florida law firm Berger, Davis & Singerman;
$200,000 to the political consulting firm Dewey Square Group;
$38,000 to Gore campaign chairman William M. Daley; and at
least $79,000 to Boston political consultant and lawyer Jack Corrigan.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (3700)12/14/2002 11:26:18 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 5185
 
Bad company

" Its testosterone-fuelled traders were fixtures in Houston's
strip clubs. One division of the company spent $2m a
year on flowers alone. And its executives used the firm's
corporate jets as taxis.
In the first extract from his
remarkable new book on the rise and fall of Enron, Robert
Bryce describes the heady mix of greed, sex and
arrogance that produced America's most spectacular
financial scandal "

Monday November 4, 2002
The Guardian
guardian.co.uk



To: Mephisto who wrote (3700)2/18/2003 8:50:35 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 5185
 


Scandal of crashed company's
tax evasion


David Teather in New York
Friday February 14, 2003
The Guardian

guardian.co.uk

Enron, the US energy company that collapsed amid scandal in
late 2001, evaded billions of dollars in tax with the help of "some
of the nation's finest" accountants, investment banks and
lawyers, according to a report published yesterday.


The report delivered at a hearing in Washington found that
Enron, once the seventh largest company in the US, paid no
federal income tax between 1996 and 1999 and only token
amounts in other years.
The three volume report was also
critical of deferred compensation plans for executives used
widely to avoid tax. It noted in passing that Enron had paid
$53m (£32m) in previously deferred compensation to top
executives in the weeks before it went bankrupt.

Charles Grassley,
chairman of the senate finance committee,
which commissioned the report, expressed outrage. Although
there is no allegation that they stepped outside the law, he said
it called into doubt the ethics of tax advisers and the "desperate"
bankers, accountants and lawyers who worked with Enron.

As well as Enron's former auditor, the defunct Arthur Andersen,
Deloitte & Touche, Chase Manhattan, Bankers Trust and
Deutsche Bank are alleged to have helped structure 12 tax
avoidance schemes identified in the report to save $2bn.

The findings were released ahead of the much anticipated
results of an investigation into Enron's collapse by the court
appointed examiner, Neal Batson, that threatens to implicate
some of the biggest names on Wall Street and in the City.

Mr Batson's report, now running to 2,000 pages, had been
expected to be published today but has now been delayed until
February 28th due to the complexities of the deals described. It
will give a detailed account of Enron's dealings with its advisers
and the delay is to give all parties concerned extra time to trawl
through the exhaustive report before it is made public.

The links between Enron and Barclays bank and law firm
Linklaters are among the relationships expected to come under
scrutiny.

Yesterday's congressional report said Enron had made
"complexity an ally" to hoodwink the internal revenue service in
the US.

According to the report, Enron's tax department was designated
a profit centre, with its own annual revenue targets. One internal
document released by the committee was titled: "Show me the
money."

The committee recommended severe penalties to limit the use
of tax shelters and to close the loopholes used by large
corporations. "Enron places the spotlight again on the general
ineffectiveness of the current law," said the author of the report,
Lindy Paull.

The collapse of Enron and subsequent financial scandals have
already prompted sweeping reform to the accounting profession,
corporate governance and the structure of investment banks.

Mr Grassley said: "The report reads like a conspiracy novel, with
some of the nation's finest banks, accounting firms and
attorneys working together to prop up the biggest corporate
farce of this century."


At the time of its bankruptcy, the firm had 1,300 foreign entities
on its books, some 80% of which were inactive shells. A third of
them were in the Cayman Islands.

Enron
collapsed after the company was found to have been
inflating earnings through a string of dubious off balance sheet
deals, destroying billions of dollars of workers and shareholders'
invest ments. Former chief financial officer, Andrew Fastow,
faces 78 counts of fraud, money laundering and other offences.
He has pleaded not guilty.

Mark Palmer, a spokesman for Enron, said: "We have and will
continue to cooperate with investigators into Enron's past but
our focus right now is on the future and maximising the value in
the estate so that we can enhance our creditors resources and
preserve as many jobs as possible."



To: Mephisto who wrote (3700)3/4/2003 3:45:58 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 5185
 
"Bush's six years as Texas governor were a dry run for national
domestic policy - steered by Rove - as President: lavish favours
to the energy industry, tax breaks for the upper income brackets
and social policy driven by evangelical zeal."

Article: Two men driving Bush into war
Author: Ed Vulliamy
( Ed Vulliamy in New York profiles the religious figures
behind a 'Texanised presidency' who believe war will
mean America is respected in the Islamic world)

Date: Sunday February 23, 2003
Source: The Observer
SI Reference:
Message 18653431



To: Mephisto who wrote (3700)8/16/2003 8:36:29 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5185
 
POWER OUTAGE TRACED TO DIM BULB IN WHITE
HOUSE --- The Tale of The Brits Who Swiped 800
Jobs From New York, Carted Off $90 Million, Then
Tonight, Turned Off Our Lights
ZNet
Friday, August 15, 2003
by Greg Palast

gregpalast.com

I can tell you all about the ne're-do-wells that
put out our lights tonight. I came up against
these characters -- the Niagara Mohawk Power
Company -- some years back. You see, before I
was a journalist, I worked for a living, as an
investigator of corporate racketeers. In the
1980s, "NiMo" built a nuclear plant, Nine Mile
Point, a brutally costly piece of hot junk for which
NiMo and its partner companies charged billions
to New York State's electricity ratepayers.

To pull off this grand theft by kilowatt, the
NiMo-led consortium fabricated cost and schedule
reports, then performed a Harry Potter job on
the account books. In 1988, I showed a jury a
memo from an executive from one partner, Long
Island Lighting, giving a lesson to a NiMo honcho
on how to lie to government regulators. The jury
ordered LILCO to pay $4.3 billion and, ultimately,
put them out of business.

And that's why, if you're in the Northeast, you're
reading this by candlelight tonight. Here's what
happened. After LILCO was hammered by the
law, after government regulators slammed
Niagara Mohawk and dozens of other
book-cooking, document-doctoring utility
companies all over America with fines and
penalties totaling in the tens of billions of dollars,
the industry leaders got together to swear never
to break the regulations again. Their plan was
not to follow the rules, but to ELIMINATE the
rules. They called it "deregulation."

It was like a committee of bank robbers figuring
out how to make safecracking legal.

But they dare not launch the scheme in the USA.
Rather, in 1990, one devious little bunch of
operators out of Texas, Houston Natural Gas,
operating under the alias "Enron," talked an
over-the-edge free-market fanatic, Britain's Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, into licensing the first
completely deregulated power plant in the
hemisphere.


And so began an economic disease called
"regulatory reform" that spread faster than
SARS. Notably, Enron rewarded Thatcher's
Energy Minister, one Lord Wakeham, with a
bushel of dollar bills for 'consulting' services and
a seat on Enron's board of directors. The English
experiment proved the viability of Enron's new
industrial formula: that the enthusiasm of
politicians for deregulation was in direct
proportion to the payola provided by power
companies.


The power elite first moved on England because
they knew Americans wouldn't swallow the
deregulation snake oil easily. The USA had
gotten used to cheap power available at the flick
of switch. This was the legacy of Franklin
Roosevelt who, in 1933, caged the man he
thought to be the last of the power pirates,
Samuel Insull. Wall Street wheeler-dealer Insull
created the Power Trust, and six decades before
Ken Lay, faked account books and ripped off
consumers. To frustrate Insull and his ilk, FDR
gave us the Federal Power Commission and the
Public Utilities Holding Company Act which told
electricity companies where to stand and salute.
Detailed regulations limited charges to real
expenditures plus a government-set profit. The
laws banned power "trading" and required
companies to keep the lights on under threat of
arrest -- no blackout blackmail to hike rates.

Of particular significance as I write here in the
dark, regulators told utilities exactly how much
they had to spend to insure the system stayed in
repair and the lights stayed on. Bureaucrats
crawled along the wire and, like me, crawled
through the account books, to make sure the
power execs spent customers' money on parts
and labor. If they didn't, we'd whack'm over the
head with our thick rule books. Did we get in the
way of these businessmen's entrepreneurial
spirit? Damn right we did.

Most important, FDR banned political
contributions from utility companies -- no 'soft'
money, no 'hard' money, no money PERIOD.

But then came George the First. In 1992, just
prior to his departure from the White House,
President Bush Senior gave the power industry
one long deep-through-the-teeth kiss good-bye:
federal deregulation of electricity. It was a legacy
he wanted to leave for his son, the gratitude of
power companies which ponied up $16 million for
the Republican campaign of 2000, seven times
the sum they gave Democrats.

But Poppy Bush's gift of deregulating of
wholesale prices set by the feds only got the
power pirates halfway to the plunder of Joe
Ratepayer. For the big payday they needed
deregulation at the state level. There were only
two states, California and Texas, big enough and
Republican enough to put the electricity market
con into operation.

California fell first.
The power companies spent
$39 million to defeat a 1998 referendum pushed
by Ralph Nadar which would have blocked the
de-reg scam. Another $37 million was spent on
lobbying and lubricating the campaign coffers of
the state's politicians to write a lie into law: in
the deregulation act's preamble, the Legislature
promised that deregulation would reduce
electricity bills by 20%. In fact, when in the first
California city to go "lawless," San Diego, the
20% savings became a 300% jump in
surcharges.

Enron circled California and licked its lips. As the
number one contributor to the George W. Bush
campaigns, it was confident about the future.
With just a half dozen other companies it
controlled at times 100% of the available power
capacity needed to keep the Golden State lit.
Their motto, "your money or your lights."


Enron and its comrades played the system like a
broken ATM machine, yanking out the bills. For
example, in the shamelessly fixed "auctions" for
electricity held by the state, Enron bid, in one
instance, to supply 500 megawatts of electricity
over a 15 megawatt line. That's like pouring a
gallon of gasoline into a thimble -- the lines
would burn up if they attempted it. Faced with
blackout because of Enron's destructive bid, the
state was willing to pay anything to keep the
lights on.

And the state did. According to Dr. Anjali Sheffrin,
economist with the California state Independent
System Operator which directs power deliveries,
between May and November 2000, three power
giants physically or "economically" withheld
power from the state and concocted enough
false bids to cost the California customers over
$6.2 billion in excess charges.

It took until December 20, 2000, with the lights
going out on the Golden Gate, for President Bill
Clinton, once a deregulation booster, to find his
lost Democratic soul and impose price caps in
California and ban Enron from the market.

But the light-bulb buccaneers didn't have to wait
long to put their hooks back into the treasure
chest. Within seventy-two hours of moving into
the White House, while he was still sweeping out
the inaugural champagne bottles, George Bush
the Second reversed Clinton's executive order
and put the power pirates back in business in
California.
Enron, Reliant (aka Houston
Industries), TXU (aka Texas Utilities) and the
others who had economically snipped California's
wires knew they could count on Dubya, who as
governor of the Lone Star state cut them the
richest deregulation deal in America.

Meanwhile, the deregulation bug made it to New
York where Republican Governor George Pataki
and his industry-picked utility commissioners
ripped the lid off electric bills and relieved my old
friends at Niagara Mohawk of the expensive
obligation to properly fund the maintenance of
the grid system.

And the Pataki-Bush Axis of Weasels permitted
something that must have former New York
governor Roosevelt spinning in his wheelchair in
Heaven: They allowed a foreign company, the
notoriously incompetent National Grid of England,
to buy up NiMo, get rid of 800 workers and
pocket most of their wages - producing a bonus
for NiMo stockholders approaching $90 million.

Is tonight's black-out a surprise? Heck, no, not to
us in the field who've watched Bush's buddies
flick the switches across the globe. In Brazil,
Houston Industries seized ownership of Rio de
Janeiro's electric company. The Texans (aided by
their French partners) fired workers, raised
prices, cut maintenance expenditures and,
CLICK! the juice went out so often the locals now
call it, "Rio Dark."

So too the free-market British buckaroos
controlling Niagara Mohawk raised prices,
slashed staff, cut maintenance and CLICK! --
New York joins Brazil in the Dark Ages.

Californians have found the solution to the
deregulation disaster: re-call the only governor in
the nation with the cojones to stand up to the
electricity price fixers. And unlike Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Gov. Gray Davis stood alone
against the bad guys without using a body
double. Davis called Reliant Corp of Houston a
pack of "pirates" --and now he'll walk the plank
for daring to stand up to the Texas marauders.

So where's the President? Just before he landed
on the deck of the Abe Lincoln, the White House
was so concerned about our brave troops facing
the foe that they used the cover of war for a new
push in Congress for yet more electricity
deregulation. This has a certain logic: there's no
sense defeating Iraq if a hostile regime remains
in California.


Sitting in the dark, as my laptop battery runs low,
I don't know if the truth about deregulation will
ever see the light --until we change the dim bulb
in the White House.

-----
See Greg Palast's award-winning reports for BBC
Television and the Guardian papers of Britain at
www.GregPalast.com. Contact Palast at his New
York office: media@gregpalast.com.

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times
bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"
(Penguin USA) and the worstseller, "Democracy
and Regulation," a guide to electricity
deregulation published by the United Nations
(written with T. MacGregor and J. Oppenheim).



To: Mephisto who wrote (3700)8/16/2003 11:12:06 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 5185
 
When the lights go out:
It is a wake-up call for serious conservation


Leader
Saturday August 16, 2003
The Guardian

On a hot Thursday afternoon, reported one US public radio
service yesterday, some 50 million people from the Northeast to
the Midwest "had something in common with the people of Iraq -
a power outage that brought life to a standstill".
With respect to
all those who were escorted out of the subway by flashlight, or
were caught in traffic jams for hours, or spent a sleepless night
without air conditioning, the blackout that spread across more
than 9,000sq km was not quite so bad as everyday existence in
Baghdad or Basra. No one risked being shot in the dark during
curfew, there was very little looting, there is no sewage in the
streets, and water and power shortages have not been routine
for months.


Yet it was still a salutary warning not just to the country that is
the world's biggest energy guzzler, but to the rest of the world
that aspires to head the same way. As the New York mayor,
Michael Bloomberg, said with an air of surprised discovery, "all
of a sudden, a few things weren't working and then you realised
how dependent we are on electricity". Unlike the California
blackouts three years ago, this one is not the direct
consequence of ill-judged privatisation.
Although there is some
evidence that deregulated power companies are more likely to
reduce spare capacity - the so-called "spinning reserve" which
can cushion in a crisis - the root cause is much simpler. As
demand grows, the margins diminish and an unforeseen incident
- yesterday there was still argument over what sparked the
outage - can escalate rapidly. Indeed research has shown that
the more sophisticated a power grid becomes in order to provide
maximum peak capacity, the more vulnerable it will be to black
out completely when something comparatively minor occurs.

Among the few pluses on Thursday night was the opportunity for
New Yorkers to see the night stars for the first time in decades.
There were also tales of "calm and ingenuity" as heroes
emerged, like the man who took over traffic control in Ottawa. In
one respect, this outage was unlike any other before: it was the
first time that people came out of their offices or from the
subway blinking in the sunlight and said to one another in a tone
of misplaced certainty "Bin Laden". With or without the terror
factor, it is a wake-up call for energy conservation that no one,
anywhere, should ignore.

guardian.co.uk



To: Mephisto who wrote (3700)8/19/2003 12:09:51 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5185
 


Keep ideology out of energy matters


"There are indications, moreover, that utilities have been
dissuaded from investment by the unsettling nature of
deregulation. Part of the transmission problem in the
Northeast may stem from the lack of regulatory
enforcement of transmission standard."


Tuesday, August 19, 2003


seattlepi.nwsource.com
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Like the experts studying the electricity blackout's cause,
political leaders need open minds.

They should not let themselves jump into enacting an
energy bill just for the sake of action or to push their
particular political beliefs.

A bill heavy on ideology -- deregulation is the theme of
House Republicans' version of energy legislation -- won't do
much.
And it could make things worse by dragging the
Northwest and the Southeast, with strong regional
transmission systems, into the type of mess the Midwest
and Northeast created for themselves.

The blackout clearly reflects a lack of investment in new
equipment. Deregulation supporters can make a legitimate
case that a more competitive market might have led to more
of the needed spending on facilities.

A well-regulated market has served Americans well,
however, with reliable -- not perfect -- service and low costs.
So we don't think deregulation offers any real attraction,
particularly for the Northwest.

There are indications, moreover, that utilities have been
dissuaded from investment by the unsettling nature of
deregulation. Part of the transmission problem in the
Northeast may stem from the lack of regulatory
enforcement of transmission standards.


But varying approaches, even including deregulation, can
work if policy-makers look carefully at practical
improvements suggested by inquiries into last week's loss
of service. Energy flows require well-managed technology,
not ideology.



To: Mephisto who wrote (3700)1/8/2004 6:14:28 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5185
 
Judge Agrees to Accept Plea Deal for Ex-Enron Figure's Wife
The New York Times

January 8, 2004

By KENNETH N. GILPIN

A federal judge in Houston agreed this afternoon to accept
a plea from the wife of Andrew S. Fastow, the former chief financial officer of Enron,
in a move that could lead to Mr. Fastow's pleading guilty to fraud charges in Enron's collapse.

Judge David Hittner's decision is expected to unlock what could have
been a legal logjam, and pave the way for federal prosecutors to not only
reach a plea agreement with Mr. Fastow, but also to indict and arraign
Richard A. Causey, Enron's former chief accountant.


Mr. Fastow's wife, Lea, has until Friday to enter the guilty plea,
and there is still a chance that she could back down. Bloomberg News reported
this afternoon that Mrs. Fastow's lawyers raised questions about a plea
after the judge said he would sign off on it only if he had the discretion to
impose a tougher sentence later.

Mrs. Fastow had been scheduled to go on trial Feb. 10.
She faced six criminal counts. Under the terms of the plea, she would admit to one count of
filing a false tax return and agree to serve five months in jail.

Mrs. Fastow had come close to negotiating a plea agreement
with prosecutors late last fall. But out of concern for their two children, she and her
husband were fearful of serving concurrent prison terms.
Without Mrs. Fastow's plea agreement, it seemed unlikely that Mr. Fastow, whose trial is
scheduled to start in April, would have agreed to making a deal with prosecutors.

It was unclear when Mr. Fastow, who faces nearly 100 criminal charges,
would enter his plea agreement.

Plea negotiations had hit a stumbling block on Wednesday,
when Judge Hittner rejected the initial deal that prosecutors had struck with Lea
Fastow because it left him with no ability to increase the sentence
above an agreed-upon term of five months.

Earlier today, Judge Hittner acted as though Mrs. Fastow's trial
was going to proceed. At a hearing this morning, the judge handed out a 36-page
question survey to 250 prospective jurors to help determine if they
are suitable to sit as jurors in Mrs. Fastow's case. The juror questionnaire is
aimed at gauging attitudes about Enron, taxes, the Fastows and other matters.

The deal with Mr. Fastow - which would result in a prison sentence
of at least 10 years, according to people involved in the case, hinged in part
on a resolution of the criminal case against his wife.


Mr. Fastow - who was charged with using off-the-books partnerships
to enrich himself and disguise Enron's financial troubles - has been a
central figure in virtually every criminal case brought in the
investigation, even those in which he was not a defendant.

Those other cases are almost sure to feature Mr. Fastow as
a primary government witness, including one against executives
from Merrill Lynch & Company who were charged with aiding
Enron in illegally puffing up its reported profits through
a bogus sale of an electrical barge.

The plea by Mr. Fastow and the expected charges against
Mr. Causey take prosecutors to the upper reaches of Enron's management, involving
executives who were in frequent contact with the company's
two former chief executives, Jeffrey K. Skilling and Kenneth L. Lay.

Former Enron executives and others involved in the investigation
said that prosecutors had pressed defendants and potential defendants -
including Mr. Fastow and Mr. Causey - to provide information
implicating either Mr. Skilling or Mr. Lay in criminal activity. As part of his
cooperation with the government, Mr. Fastow was said to have
already provided information about Mr. Skilling, whom he worked with for almost a
decade, but there was no indication yesterday whether those details
would merit or sustain criminal charges.


The plea negotiations have been driven by Mr. Fastow, who was indicted
more than a year ago on 98 counts of fraud and conspiracy, a person close
to the case said. The deal entails certain perils for Mr. Fastow,
including the possibility of serving additional time if the government concluded he
failed to cooperate fully in its investigation, people involved in the case said.
Indeed, these people said that Mr. Keker, Mr. Fastow's lawyer, was
"heartsick" about the stringent terms of the deal.

The inquiry into possible wrongdoing at Enron has been enormously
complex, often because the issues involved came down to questions of whether
investigators were examining bad business decisions or a knowing effort
to commit crime. The case against Mr. Fastow has always been the most
significant in that regard because the accusations involved much more clear-cut criminal activity.

As a result, Mr. Fastow - who was implicated in wrongdoing by a onetime
friend and subordinate, Michael Kopper - has long been viewed as an
avenue for prosecutors into the final stages of the Enron investigation.
Given the strength of the case against Mr. Fastow and his wife, prosecutors
had more leverage over him than over any other senior Enron executive.
In the end, he was viewed as the man most likely to succumb to pressure
to reveal everything he saw in the company's executive suites.

The criminal charges against Mr. Fastow, which included fraud,
money laundering and conspiracy, portray Enron as a company where fraud and
deceit were the workaday mechanisms used to hide the fact that
the corporation was secretly spinning out of control. Ultimately, Mr. Fastow is
depicted in the charges as a facilitator who manipulated
accounting and financial techniques to allow Enron to disguise
its many business failings
while enriching himself at the company's expense.

As portrayed in his indictment, Mr. Fastow entered into
two kinds of illegal conspiracies: schemes in which he defrauded the marketplace by
disguising Enron's true financial performance and schemes in which
he defrauded Enron itself by siphoning money into his own pockets. The
crimes were vast and complex, with the proceeds from one illegal
transaction at times being used to help finance the next.

The government charged that he backdated documents
to manipulate the company's financial statements and drained millions of dollars that
rightfully belonged to Enron and a bank that invested with it.
To obtain illicit kickbacks, the charges said, Mr. Fastow instructed a colleague to
write $10,000 checks to his wife and children, an amount deliberately
chosen to avoid incurring federal gift taxes. Some of those transactions
played the central role in the indictment against Lea Fastow.

The original criminal complaint specifically cited the company's
chief accounting officer - who, while not identified, was Mr. Causey - as entering
into an illegal agreement with Mr. Fastow. Under that agreement,
the company agreed to shield a partnership controlled by Mr. Fastow from losses
in its dealings with Enron, the complaint said. Such a deal would
allow Enron to sell poorly performing assets to Mr. Fastow's partnership and
report earnings from that transaction, even though the company
continued to bear the risk of any losses.

Kurt Eichenwald contributed to this report.

nytimes.com Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company