The Wall Street Journal just reported that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a West Virginia judge had a conflict of interest in a case that involved a company that gave the justice over $3 million in campaign contributions. Given that the judge received these contributions, the court ruled that the judge's failure to recuse himself before overturning a lawsuit against the company needed to be rectified.
What is a bit shocking to me is that the ruling on the bench was 5-4. What were the other four justices thinking? My guess is that they never saw the classic movie "A Man for All Seasons" in which Sir Thomas Moore explains to Richard Rich that being a judge can involve incredible pressure in the form of bribes and that Rich should avoid those conflicts because he lacked the integrity that Moore exhibited when he gave his life on principle. In my opinion, Moore's life is an amazing story and "A Man for All Seasons" is one of the GREATEST movies ever filmed!
You may be asking: what does this have to do with fraud? Well it may only be indirectly applicable. More on point, however, is the news that the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from Tyco's former executives, Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz. It looks like Kozlowski's statement that "We have no perks, not even parking spaces" is now going to come true for several years as he lives out his life in jail. Maybe Kozlowski was prophesying...
Mark: The Tyco International scandal -- and the particular stories of the executives who were and were not convicted -- shows why the use of electronic archival systems is making more and more sense. See analysis --Ben
ReplyDelete