Commentary and information about public safety and security, intelligence and counterintelligence, open government and secrecy, and other issues in northern Idaho and eastern Washington.

Location: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, United States

Raised in Palouse, WA. Graduated from Washington State University. US Army (Counterintelligence). US Secret Service (Technical Security Division) in Fantasyland-on-the-Potomac and Los Angeles. Now living in north Idaho.

Monday, February 19, 2007

The President's Corporate Fraud Task Force

Corporate fraud? Here in eastern Washington and northern Idaho? Before you say it couldn't happen here, remember these two words: Metropolitan Mortgage.

But there have been far more widely publicized and financially devastating examples of corporate fraud. Note that this abbreviated list also contains another Washington State company, Holmes Harbor Sewer District.

What does The President's Corporate Fraud Task Force do?

It was established by Executive Order 13271 of July 9, 2002. The CFTC's main functions is to:

Provide direction for the investigation and prosecution of cases of securities fraud, accounting fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, tax fraud based on such predicate offenses, and other related financial crimes committed by commercial entities and directors, officers, professional advisers, and employees thereof (hereinafter "financial crimes''), when such cases are determined by the Deputy Attorney General, for purposes of this order, to be significant.

How the President's Corporate Fraud Task Force goes about prosecuting corporations is outlined in Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations. One paragraph from the cover memorandum sums it all up:

The main focus of the revisions is increased emphasis on and scrutiny of the authenticity of a corporation's cooperation. Too often business organizations, while purporting to cooperate with a Department investigation, in fact take steps to impede the quick and effective exposure of the complete scope of wrongdoing under investigation. The revisions make clear that such conduct should weigh in favor of a corporate prosecution. The revisions also address the efficacy of the corporate governance mechanisms in place within a corporation, to ensure that these measures are truly effective rather than mere paper programs.