Saying the fraud sentencing of kosher meat king Shalom Rubashkin was disproportionate compared with sentences meted out to others who committed more serious crimes, Rep. Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn has called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to intervene.
Congresswoman Calls For U.S. Inquiry On Rubashkin Sentence
Adam Dickter • The Jewish Week
Saying the fraud sentencing of kosher meat king Shalom Rubashkin was disproportionate compared with sentences meted out to others who committed more serious crimes, Rep. Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn has called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to intervene.
“While our system is one of the best, unfortunately it does not always get it right,” wrote Clarke, whose district includes Crown Heights, home of the Lubavitch Chasidic movement, in which the Rubashkin family is prominent. “I have opposed mandatory minimums throughout my public life as they often times result in sentences that don’t fit the crime.”
Rubashkin, the CEO and vice president of Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa, was sentenced to 27 years after being convicted of 86 of 91 bank fraud charges. Prosecutors initially accused him of employing illegal workers but dropped those charges.
The fraud conviction involved $26 million in funds from First Bank Business Capital of St. Louis.
Reduce taxes,help charities
In her letter to Holder Clarke noted that Tyco investment executives Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz were sentenced to eight and one third to 25 years for a scheme involving hundreds of millions and Enron energy chief Jeffrey Skilling, in a scandal that led to the collapse of a $63 billion company, was sentenced to 24 years. WorldCom communications CEO Bernie Ebbers received 25 years for a fraud involving $11 billion, Clarke wrote.
“The fact that Mr. Rubashkin received a more severe sentence than any of those mentioned is troublesome and inconsistent with having the punishment fit the crime,” Clarke wrote. “Therefore, on behalf of my constituents who have come to me seeking justice in this case, I am requesting that you launch a formal inquiry into the sentencing phase of this case.”
It is clear that Congressperson Clarke relied on Nathan Lewin's spin rather than on the facts of the case, and rather than on the facts of federal sentencing. What she wrote may sound good to a hasid or a haredi stumbling around Brooklyn, but to Eric Holder it will surely sound foolish. Here's why:
1. Sentencing for white collar crimes has gotten considerably harsher, in part as a response to the Enron sentences. To compare a white collar criminal's sentence today with one given 7 or 10 years ago without noting this across the board change in sentencing looks foolish because it is foolish.
2. Rubashkin attorney Nathan Lewin and his spin team often like to compare Rubashkin's sentence to white collar criminals who cooperated with the government and whose crimes were truly limited, even if the impact of those crimes was not. But Rubashkin refused to cooperate, obstructed justice, lied, perjured himself, bribed a public official, laundered money, showed no genuine remorse, hid his assets, and has made no effort toward restitution. You cannot with a straight face compare a cooperative white collar criminal, especially one who pleaded guilty, with Sholom Rubashkin.
3. The US Sentencing Guidelines call for a 22 to 30 year sentence for Sholom Rubashkin's crimes. The judge gave him 25 and then added 2 more for perjury. One can argue that the Judge Reade should have shown mercy and departed downward from the guidelines. But one also must take into account that Judge Reade rarely departs downward from the Sentencing Guidelines and has a years long track record of being a tough sentencing judge. To say Rubashkin is being singled out for harsh treatment is to ignore (or misrepresent) Judge Reade's record, as Eric Holder certainly knows.
As I've said before, the villain here besides Rubashkin (and Lewin) is the US Sentencing Guidelines, which clearly need to be revamped. Indeed Congressperson Clarke herself seems to agree with my assessment:
“I have opposed mandatory minimums throughout my public life as they often times result in sentences that don’t fit the crime.”
But Lewin isn't drawing attention to that truth because that truth removes or seriously weakens Rubashkin's claim that he is being discriminated against.
And now a note on the Jewish Week's reporting.
To write:
Rubashkin, the CEO and vice president of Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa, was sentenced to 27 years after being convicted of 86 of 91 bank fraud charges. Prosecutors initially accused him of employing illegal workers but dropped those charges
is misleading.
Rubashkin originally faced one federal trial on all the financial and immigration charges, but his defense team asked that immigration charges be severd from the financial charges and for there to be two trials instead of one.
In the first trial, Rubashkin was convicted of bank, wire, and mail fraud, along with money laundering and violating the GIPSA Act. Once convicted of those charges, there was no need to try the immigration charges, because those charges would not have added much, if anything, to Rubashkin's sentence. So the government dropped the immigration with the provision it could reinstate them if it so desired.
And, as I noted above, the Sentencing Guidelines called for 22 to 30 years, the judge gave Rubashkin 25, and added in 2 more for perjury.
In closing, Rubashkin is in a pickle largely of his own making.
Even so, his sentence is too harsh.
That should be addressed, however, by attacking the Sentencing Guidelines, not the judges who choose to follow them.