Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Corporate Scandal

Aired June 10, 2003 - 10:04   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Well, now some legal perspective. Robert Mince is a former federal prosecutor who handled a variety of white-collar crimes. He now uses that expertise in private practice. Mr. Mintz joins us now from New York.
Good to see you, Mr. Mintz.

Well, we heard from Chris, the prosecutors, though Waksal had a guilty plea, they really want to come down hard on him, and that they will be pushing likely for more than at least six or seven year sentence. Do you see that as a realistic approach in that courtroom?

ROBERT MINTZ, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I do. I think what we can expect this morning is a real battle on both sides with impassioned pleas both from Waksal's lawyers for a lesser sentence and from the government to try to jack the sentence up above the seven and a half years that are now mandated by the sentencing guidelines.

WHITFIELD: At the same time, it is clear that he's being made as an example in the corporate scandal. Is it likely the judge may want to take a very similar approach and use him as an example in giving him a stiff sentence?

MINTZ: I think under any scenario, he'll receive a stiff sentence. Six years in a case like this is a very severe sentence, because there is no parole, and he'll likely serve the majority of that time. But the government's going to say he didn't cooperate with us, he refused to implicate family members, and really deserve a harsher sentence than seven and a half years, which is the upper end of the range.

WHITFIELD: Why is seven years considered stiff when the maximum is 75 years and upwards of $3.5 billion in fines?

MINTZ: Those are the statutory maximums that really don't control these cases. The cases are governed by what's called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which is a book that basically calculates sentences in financial crimes based upon the illicit gain or loss to the public.

Here, the government's going to argue that he has pled guilty to certain crimes, but other crimes, he has not admitted culpability at all, and he really deserves to be punished for those as well.

WHITFIELD: Well, you're saying he hasn't been very cooperative in trying to -- or being very forthright in giving up information. But perhaps, might there have been a behind the doors deal made to try and get a lesser type of sentence?

MINTZ: I don't think so. Here, the government and Waksal's lawyers tried to cut a deal for quite a few months. And at the end of the day, Waksal's lawyers took a very interesting approach. They went into court without the benefit of any kind of a plea agreement, and they simply pled guilty to certain offenses, hoping that that would be enough to satisfy the government. It didn't, and the government's going to try to argue for more.

WHITFIELD: Well, how much do you see the influence being made from this sentence as it pertains to how prosecutors are going to be pursuing charges against Martha Stewart?

MINTZ: Well, there's no direct relationship. The cases stand alone, based upon the separate facts and the separate charges. But it does set the stage for future sentencings down the road, and it really is sending a signal to those on wall street who may consider these types of crimes that the government is going to go after them very vigorously and pursue white collar crime just as effectively as it has pursued violent crime in the past.

WHITFIELD: Well, separate charges, but, indeed, it is a case that they were good friends and also had very much a fiduciary relationship as well?

MINTZ: They do, and you're correct that the facts here are somewhat inter-related. I think that if Sam Waksal goes to jail for a long period of time, that at the end of the day, if Martha Stewart is convicted of those charges, there will be pressure to send her to jail as well.

WHITFIELD: Something interesting in all of this, despite his sentencing that may come down today, the application being made to the FDA from ImClone may, indeed, take place again. They may resubmit that application to the FDA, and there are some sources that seem to believe that this time, it may just get FDA approval, all this taking place while he may be sitting in jail.

MINTZ: That is the ultimate irony, and it does point out, at least from the government's perspective, just how foolish and, they would argue, greedy he was in taking the steps he did. At the end of the day, the drug was likely to be very effective. The stock would have rebounded, and all of the actions that he took to try to prevent those losses and to prevent the losses for family members could have been avoided.

WHITFIELD: And quickly, what would jail look like for him?

MINTZ: He would go to a minimum-security prison, where there would be no bars and no gates preventing him from leaving the facility, but it is incarceration. It is a loss of liberty, and he will go for a minimum of six years.

WHITFIELD: Robert Mintz, thanks very much. Appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired June 10, 2003 - 10:04   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Well, now some legal perspective. Robert Mince is a former federal prosecutor who handled a variety of white-collar crimes. He now uses that expertise in private practice. Mr. Mintz joins us now from New York.
Good to see you, Mr. Mintz.

Well, we heard from Chris, the prosecutors, though Waksal had a guilty plea, they really want to come down hard on him, and that they will be pushing likely for more than at least six or seven year sentence. Do you see that as a realistic approach in that courtroom?

ROBERT MINTZ, FMR. FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I do. I think what we can expect this morning is a real battle on both sides with impassioned pleas both from Waksal's lawyers for a lesser sentence and from the government to try to jack the sentence up above the seven and a half years that are now mandated by the sentencing guidelines.

WHITFIELD: At the same time, it is clear that he's being made as an example in the corporate scandal. Is it likely the judge may want to take a very similar approach and use him as an example in giving him a stiff sentence?

MINTZ: I think under any scenario, he'll receive a stiff sentence. Six years in a case like this is a very severe sentence, because there is no parole, and he'll likely serve the majority of that time. But the government's going to say he didn't cooperate with us, he refused to implicate family members, and really deserve a harsher sentence than seven and a half years, which is the upper end of the range.

WHITFIELD: Why is seven years considered stiff when the maximum is 75 years and upwards of $3.5 billion in fines?

MINTZ: Those are the statutory maximums that really don't control these cases. The cases are governed by what's called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which is a book that basically calculates sentences in financial crimes based upon the illicit gain or loss to the public.

Here, the government's going to argue that he has pled guilty to certain crimes, but other crimes, he has not admitted culpability at all, and he really deserves to be punished for those as well.

WHITFIELD: Well, you're saying he hasn't been very cooperative in trying to -- or being very forthright in giving up information. But perhaps, might there have been a behind the doors deal made to try and get a lesser type of sentence?

MINTZ: I don't think so. Here, the government and Waksal's lawyers tried to cut a deal for quite a few months. And at the end of the day, Waksal's lawyers took a very interesting approach. They went into court without the benefit of any kind of a plea agreement, and they simply pled guilty to certain offenses, hoping that that would be enough to satisfy the government. It didn't, and the government's going to try to argue for more.

WHITFIELD: Well, how much do you see the influence being made from this sentence as it pertains to how prosecutors are going to be pursuing charges against Martha Stewart?

MINTZ: Well, there's no direct relationship. The cases stand alone, based upon the separate facts and the separate charges. But it does set the stage for future sentencings down the road, and it really is sending a signal to those on wall street who may consider these types of crimes that the government is going to go after them very vigorously and pursue white collar crime just as effectively as it has pursued violent crime in the past.

WHITFIELD: Well, separate charges, but, indeed, it is a case that they were good friends and also had very much a fiduciary relationship as well?

MINTZ: They do, and you're correct that the facts here are somewhat inter-related. I think that if Sam Waksal goes to jail for a long period of time, that at the end of the day, if Martha Stewart is convicted of those charges, there will be pressure to send her to jail as well.

WHITFIELD: Something interesting in all of this, despite his sentencing that may come down today, the application being made to the FDA from ImClone may, indeed, take place again. They may resubmit that application to the FDA, and there are some sources that seem to believe that this time, it may just get FDA approval, all this taking place while he may be sitting in jail.

MINTZ: That is the ultimate irony, and it does point out, at least from the government's perspective, just how foolish and, they would argue, greedy he was in taking the steps he did. At the end of the day, the drug was likely to be very effective. The stock would have rebounded, and all of the actions that he took to try to prevent those losses and to prevent the losses for family members could have been avoided.

WHITFIELD: And quickly, what would jail look like for him?

MINTZ: He would go to a minimum-security prison, where there would be no bars and no gates preventing him from leaving the facility, but it is incarceration. It is a loss of liberty, and he will go for a minimum of six years.

WHITFIELD: Robert Mintz, thanks very much. Appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com