Sources: Kenneth Lay indicted

[Dionysos]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ge/enron_lay_3



By KRISTEN HAYS, AP Business Writer

HOUSTON - Former Enron Corp. chairman and CEO Kenneth Lay has been indicted on criminal charges related to the energy company's collapse, sources close to the case told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Lay, the company's founder, was expected to surrender to federal authorities Thursday, the sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Two sources said the indictment against Lay, 62, was expected to be unsealed upon or shortly after his surrender to the FBI (news - web sites).

Prosecutors from the Justice Department (news - web sites)'s Enron Task Force presented an indictment to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Milloy in Houston on Wednesday. At their request, the judge sealed both the indictment and an arrest warrant.

A hearing before Milloy was scheduled for late Thursday morning.

Lay has consistently maintained his innocence of any wrongdoing.

Enron, once No. 7 on the Fortune 500, had more than 20,000 employees worldwide before the company imploded nearly three years ago amid revelations of hidden debt, inflated profits and accounting tricks.

The charges against Lay come 2 1/2 years after the federal government launched its painstaking investigation.

The indictment takes the task force to the top of the fallen company's former senior management. Former CEO Jeffrey Skilling and former top accountant Richard Causey are awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy, fraud and insider trading. Both pleaded innocent and are free on bond.

And waiting to testify for the prosecution is former finance chief Andrew Fastow, who pleaded guilty to two conspiracy counts in January. Fastow admitted to engineering partnerships and financial schemes to hide Enron debt and inflate profits while pocketing millions for himself.

[Satchel]

Great timing. I have quite a few conservative friends who were not going to vote for Bush specifically on this issue.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Satchel
Great timing. I have quite a few conservative friends who were not going to vote for Bush specifically on this issue.

I can't speak to the timing, but I do know the commission has been working their way up the chain. It was a matter of time before it made it all the way to the top.

Originally posted by Satchel
Great timing. I have quite a few conservative friends who were not going to vote for Bush specifically on this issue.

how come?

[Satchel]

because they felt his handling of corporate crime is an absolute disgrace

Originally posted by Satchel
because they felt his handling of corporate crime is an absolute disgrace

But these guys (who committed their crimes under the Clinton administration) are getting put on trial by GW. How is that disgraceful?

[Satchel]

Corporate crime isn't really an area that I pay a lot of attention to. I'm just telling you what some friends have said. However, from what I have read/heard it seems like they dragged thier heels big time on prosecuting this.

Originally posted by Satchel
Corporate crime isn't really an area that I pay a lot of attention to. I'm just telling you what some friends have said. However, from what I have read/heard it seems like they dragged thier heels big time on prosecuting this.

I'm not terribly familiar either - just curious. Heel dragging may or may not be a fair criticism - I don't know. I do know that a shit load of people have now been indicted etc

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by xiannaix
I'm not terribly familiar either - just curious. Heel dragging may or may not be a fair criticism - I don't know. I do know that a shit load of people have now been indicted etc

Prosecution has gone after Enron execs like they do drug dealers, in other words they started small and got the mid-level execs to turn on the bigger execs. They kept doing this all the way up to the top, which is why you saw indictments for Fastow, Causey, etc. before Lay.

Originally posted by Dionysos
Prosecution has gone after Enron execs like they do drug dealers, in other words they started small and got the mid-level execs to turn on the bigger execs. They kept doing this all the way up to the top, which is why you saw indictments for Fastow, Causey, etc. before Lay.

Would it be fair to say the administration was vigilant in addressing the issue?

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Would it be fair to say the administration was vigilant in addressing the issue?

I would think so. I'm sure it would have been possible to get the indictments a bit sooner, but I have a feeling once that tape - the 'Grandma Millie' tape - surfaced the prosecution pretty much had everything they needed.

[Element4040]

Burn baby Burn!

Originally posted by Dionysos
I would think so. I'm sure it would have been possible to get the indictments a bit sooner, but I have a feeling once that tape - the 'Grandma Millie' tape - surfaced the prosecution pretty much had everything they needed.

I heard today that in the Lay cases there were over 50,000,000 documents. If they average 10 pages each blah blah blah - litigation involving that much document review sucks up more billable hours than I can imagine. I'm surprised he's on trial this quickly.