Professional Documents
Culture Documents
!i
~
..,1 :Th ;;;,
WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI ',:p. ~ -T1;,
CO
ROBERT P. FELDMAN " •....",":!c
Ire-~
,,' ,J -M.
2 Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 900 ""~
.,'\'.', ...
Palo Alto, California 94306 Cf'h
..
... jjil: ",'1" ,\',.'
,;"..,:';
3 Telephone: (415) 493-9300 ::-
i/;
.-I? 10
4
:;::.~~~
..
5
McKENNA & CUNEO
MICHAEL L. FAYAD
One Market Plaza, Suite 2700
--
cf:>
j
Attorneys for Defendant
13 JOHN D. IACOBUCCI
14 COBLENTZ, CAHEN, McCABE & BREYER
CHARLES R. BREYER ,
15 JEFFREY COGEN
222 Kearny Street, 7th Floor
16 San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 391-4800
17
Attorneys for Defendant
18 RONALD L. SCHULTZ
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
C. Any Arguable Ambiguity in the Meaning of
15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(4) and (5) Must be
Construed in Favor of The Defendants 16
19
CONCLUSION 18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- i -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES
2
CASE PAGE
3
Bronston v. United States
4 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 14, 15
7 In re Stringer
847 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1988) 16
8
Metheany v. United States
9 390 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1968) 8
26
- 11 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
PAGE
CASE (con't)
2 United States v. Gahagan
881 F.2d 1380 (6th Cir. 1989) 14
3
united States v. Howard
4 855 F.2d 832 (11th Cir. 1988) 9
23
24
25
26
- iii -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
PAGE
2
UNITED STATES CODES
3 13
7 U.S.C. § 1373
13
7 U.S.C. § 1642
4 11, 12,
IS U.S.C. § 78m(b)(2)
IS
5 7 8m (b) ( 4 ) 10-13,
IS U.S.C. §
lS-17
6 78m(b)(S) 10-16
IS U.S.C. §
78dd-l(a). 1
IS U.S.C. §
7 U.S.C. 78dd-l(a) (3) (A) 2
IS §
78dd-l(a) (3) (A) (i). 2
IS U.S.C. §
8 U.S.C. 80a-33 13
IS §
U.S.C. 916e 13
16 §
13
9 18 U.S.C. § lS2
U.S.C. 1001 8, 13
18 §
10 U.S.C. ISIS 13
18 §
U.S.C. 1621 8
18 §
11 U.S.C. 846 9, 10
21 §
S762(a)(2) 13
26 U.S.C. §
12 U.S.C. S763(b) 13
26 §
13
4S U.S.C. § 438(e)
13 220(e) 13
47 U.S.C. §
10S29(f) 13
49 U.S.C. §
11909(a) 13
14 49 U.S.C. §
15
OTHER AUTHORITY
16
Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions,
17 Instruction § 16.02 (3rd ed. 1977 and Supp. 1990) 8
21
22
23
24
25
26
- iv -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
INTRODUCTION
2 Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a) requires the district court to
3 grant a motion for acquittal if the evidence is insufficient to
4 sustain a conviction. The Court must decide whether, viewing the
5 evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any
6 rational juror could have found the elements of the crime beyond a
7 reasonable doubt. United States v. Loya, 807 F.2d 1483, 1486 (9th
8 Cir. 1987).
9 As set forth more fully below, Judgment of Acquittal is
14
15
16 I.
17 ARGUMENT
18 NO RATIONAL JUROR COULD FIND DEFENDANTS, AS CHARGED IN COUNT
FOUR, GUILTY OF CORRUPTLY AUTHORIZING A BRIBE ON MAY 1, 1989
19
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act criminalizes only
20
payment or authorization of payment which is "corruptly" made; that
21
is, only payment or authorization of payment which is made with the
22
expectation of some explicit official action in return. 15 U.S.C.
23
§ 78dd-l(a). The Act further requires that with respect to payment
24
to a third party intermediary -- as the Indictment describes O'Hara
25
the payment must be authorized to be made, "to any foreign
26
- 1 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
official . • • ," "for the purposes of - (A) (i) influencing any act
2 or decision of such foreign official in his official
3 capacity." 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-l(a)(3)(A) and 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-
4 l(a) (3) (A) (i). In short, the payment must be for some prospective
5 act or decision of a foreign official.
15 Cir. 1980).
19 995. Though the defendant in Strand argued that the trial court
22
the trial court's instructions as a whole had in fact made clear to
the jury that the receipt of the unlawful payment was required to
23
be made in exchange or return for specific official action, or
24
violation of official duty. Id. at 996, and n. 3.
25
Thus, in order to meet its burden of proof for the crime
26
- 2 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
charged in Count Four of the Indictment, the Government is required
2 to prove, in pertinent part, that:
3 (1) On May 1, 1989, the Defendants cor ruptly
paid or authorized payment to Robert O'Hara,
4 with the expectation of obtaining in return some
explicit official action in their favor;
5
(2) That the Defendants corruptly paid or
6 authorized payment to O'Hara knowing that O'Hara
would offer or give a portion of the payment to
7 Telecom officials; and
8 (3) That the Defendants knew that such offer or
payment by O'Hara would be for the purpose of
9 influencing the acts or decisions of Telecom
officials in their official capacities.
10
This burden has not been met.
11
No rational juror could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt
12
that any portion of Defendants' May 1, 1989 payment to Robert
13
O'Hara was authorized to be made to any Telecom officials for the
14
purpose of influencing any act or decision of such Telecom
15
officials in their official capacities.
16
The Government concedes that at the time of the May 1,
17
1989 payment, the Defendants had abandoned any pursuit of Telecom
18
contracts in Colombia. 1 O'Hara's undisputed testimony is that
19
20
1:.1 Scott MacKay explained in his opening statement:
21
However, by April of 1989, it was determined at
22 DTS that Mr. O'Hara's sole purpose at that point
should be to find a commercial distributor. The
23 whole deal changed. . • • But that didn't end
DTS's dealings with Mr. O'Hara because they
24 still had to pay him for services that he had
rendered in March.
25
Transcript of Government's Opening Statement, March 6, 1991 at 33-
34, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
26
- 3 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
Defendants determined during their March trip to Colombia that they
2
were not interested in bidding on the Telecom contracts that O'Hara
3
had appr ised them of, and that they didn't bid on any Telecom
4
contracts.
5 The Government presented no evidence that Defendants' May
6 1, 1989 payment of $13,345 was intended to go to Telecom
7 officials. The only evidence by the Government that even supports
8 speculation that some portion of the May payment would go to
9 Telecom officials is Robert 0' Hara 's testimony as to his
13 Grand Jury that Mr. Iacobucci did not enter into any agreement with
14 Mr. O'Hara. 3
16 at all that the May 1, 1989 payment was "corrupt." All evidence
17 relating to the May 1 payment shows that the payment could not have
20 not bid for any Telecom contracts; they did not bid for any
22
- 4 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
the March trip.
2 The Government's theory on Count Four is that Defendants'
3 May 1 payment was reimbursement for money paid, or authorized to be
4 paid, by O'Hara in March. 4 Put differently, the Government
5 contends that on May 1, 1989 Defendants were reimbursing O'Hara for
9 the company wouldn't bid for, and in fact did not bid for.
16 return. United States v. Strand, 574 F.2d 993, 995-996 (9th Cir.
23
Four.
24
- 5 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
II.
2
NO RATIONAL JUROR COULD FIND DEFENDANTS
3 GUILTY OF "FALSIFICATION" OF RECORDS
WHERE THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE IN FACT TRUE
4
Count Five of the Indictment charges Defendants with
5
violating the accounting provision of the Foreign Cor~upt Practices
6
Act, which cr iminali zes a knowing falsi fica tion of those books,
7 records, and accounts which the FCPA requires a corporation to
8 keep, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflecting the
9 transactions and dispositions of the assets of the corporation.
10 The Indictment charges that the Defendants falsified their books,
11 records and accounts by describing payments to O'Hara as
14 government officials.
19 they did not describe that a portion of the $22,845 paid to O'Hara
- 6 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
Defendants' Exhibit D.
2 However, Robert O'Hara's uncontradicted testimony
- 7 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
the disposition of the monies paid to him.
2 A first requirement of every federal "false statement" or
3 "falsification" statute is that the statement, record or other
14
- 8 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
statute,9 and the false statements provision of the tax code. lO
2 construing the evidence in favor of the Government, at
3 most Defendants here attempted to falsify their books, records and
4 accounts by describing payments to 0' Hara as fees and expenses
5 while believing, incorrectly, that their descriptions were false.
6 Customarily, the government charges an attempt where the
7 defendant's intent satisfies the mental state described by the
8 criminal statute, but where his act does not accomplish the conduct
9 prohibited by statute. Federal law prohibiting possession or
10 distribution of a "controlled substance" provides a case in
11 point: where a defendant, possessing the level of knowledge or
12 intent required by the statute, distributes a substance which,
13 unknown to him, is not in fact "controlled" -- for example, where
14 he distributes powder detergent rather than cocaine he may be
23
24
2/ See United States v. Cloud, 872 F.2d 846 (9th Cir. 1989).
25
10/ See United States v. Marabelles, 724 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir.
26 1984); UnIted States v. Howard, 855 F.2d 832, 835 (11th Cir. 1988).
- 9 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
as its attempted violation. United States v. Rivera-Sola, 713 F.2d
2 866, 869 (1st Ci r. 1983); see also Uni ted States v. Rovetuso, 768
3 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Marley, 632 F.2d 978,
4 987 (2nd Cir. 1980). Thus, to draw again upon the example cited
5 above, attempted distribution or possession of a controlled
6 substance is criminalized by an explici t attempt provision at 21
7 U.S.C. § 846. The FCPA contains no such provision.
8 In view of a complete lack of any evidence that O'Hara
14
15 III.
23 claimed that the retainer and expense money recorded in Harr is'
24 records was not, in fact, paid to O'Hara, or that the records were
25 false for any reason other than the non-disclosure of the ultimate
26
disposition of such money by O'Hara. There is no evidence that
- 10 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
Defendants "falsified" their records by any affirmative
2 misrepresentation; rather, at most Defendants "falsified" by
3 omission, that is, by failing to describe the ultimate disposition
4 of money paid to O'Hara. Defendants' failure to detail the
5 ultimate disposition of money to O'Hara, however, does not
6 constitute a crime under the FCPA accounting provision, 15 U.S.C. §
- 11 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
keep books, records and accounts in the detail required by
2 Paragraph (2) is not a crime under Paragraphs (4) and (5).12 Yet,
3 at the same time, the Government asks the Court to interpret the
4 separate charge of "knowingly falsifies" to include falsification
5 through a failure to keep sufficiently detailed records. This
6 strained interpretation swallows the restriction on criminal
7 liabili ty imposed by Paragraph (4) , effectively permitting
17
18
11/ Paragraph (5) also criminalizes knowingly circumventing or
19 failing to implement a system of accounting controls. See 15
U.S.C. § 78m(b)(5). The Indictment nowhere alleges that Defendants
20 violated this provision, and counsel for the Government has
conceded that that provision is not at issue in this case.
21
12/ The language of Count Five of the Indictment directly
22 charges Defendants with the crime of failing to keep reasonably
detailed records. Similarly, the language of Paragraphs B.2 and
23 C.9 of Count One charges the Defendants with conspiring to commit
such a crime. However, in its Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
24
Dismiss Count Five, the Government conceded that the failure to
keep reasonably detailed records does not give rise to criminal
25 liability under the Act, and argued instead that the "reasonable
detail" language of Paragraph (2) at 15 U.S.C. § 78m(b) was
"relevant to" the charge of falsification.
26
- 12 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
or a "failure to keep records" when it chooses to criminalize such
2 conduct in addition to the conduct of affirmative
3 "falsification." In agreement with Congress' practice, the federal
15
- 13 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
omissions, Congress incorporates express language of "omission" and
2 "concealment," in contrast to the "falsification" language used in
3
15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(5).
4 In addition to established congressional practice, the
5 federal courts have consistently interpreted statutes prohibi ting
6 falsification to include only affirmative misrepresentation, absent
7 additional language clearly prohibiting omission, concealment, or
9 409 U. S. 352, 357-358 (1973), the courts have held that a person
17
10529(f) ("false or incomplete entry"); 49 U.S.C. § 11909(a) ("does
18 not enter business related facts and transactions in the record" in
addition to "makes a false entry in the report or record").
19
14/ See, ~, Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 357-
20 358 (1973-).-
15/ See, ~, United States v. Cowley, 720 F.2d 1037 (9th
21
Cir. 1983r;-see also United States v. Cook, 497 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.
22 1973).
16/ See, ~, United States v. Gahagan, 881 F.2d 1380, 1382
23
(6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Diogo, 320 F.2d 898 (2nd Cir.
24 1963).
17/ See, ~, United States v. Erickson, 601 F.2d 296, 302-03
25
(7th Cir. 1979).
26
(cont.)
- 14 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
Defendants' descriptions of the subject transactions in
2 this case were literally true and accurate. The Indictment alleges
10 Defendants stated the literal truth when they recorded the subject
11 transactions as "consultant retainer fees," "consultant expenses,"
23
18/ See, ~, United States v. Attick, 649 F.2d 61, 63 (1st
24 Cir. 1981).
25 19/ See Testimony of Robert O'Hara, March 14, 1991 at 6:930-
938; 6:990-991, attached hereto as Exhibit G.
26
- 15 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
made clear its intent not to criminalize omissions under the FCPA
2 by expressly limi ting criminal liabili ty to Paragraph (4) of 15
3 U.S.C. § 78m(b). In the absence of express language criminalizing
4 omission or concealment, the statute must be construed only to
5 prohibit affirmative falsification. See United States v. Diogo,
6 320 F.2d 898,902 (2nd Cir. 1963); In re Stringer, 847 F.2d 549,
20 S.Ct. 997 (1990); United States v. Dunlap, 573 F.2d 1092, 1093-1094
21 (9th Cir. 1978) (criminal statutes must be str ictly construed; any
24
The Supreme Court has warned that it is especially
25
important that complex federal crimes -- such as the FCPA -- be
- 16 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 348 (1971) (cited in
2 Crandon). It is rare, the Court has warned, that legislative
3 history or statutory construction will support an interpretation of
4 a fedeTal criminal statute broader than that clearly warranted by
5 the text. Crandon, 110 S.Ct. at 1003.
6 This is particularly true here, where the language of §
12 effect.
13 For these reasons, a judgment of acquittal on Count Five
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- 17 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
CONCLUSION
2 For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant
3 Defendants' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Count Four, and on
4 Count Five.
5 Dated: March 18, 1991 Respectfully submitted,
8 By: g~ ~-~-~
--+=J-=E-=F=F=R=E::":Y,--:R,-•..L...::C==HA=-=-N=-=I"..:N=-----
9 JULIA BOAZ-COOPER
On behalf of all
10 Defendants
11
ILK/JI-3P6
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
- 18 -
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
PROOF OF SERVICE BY HAND
2 I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to
16
I, Ingr id Komi to, declare under penalty of per jury that
18 C\
4'
g,"(;t:OL:;.l;;
ngr id Komi to
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
WHEN THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE THEY HAD MET WITH CONGRESSMAN LOPEZ,
THEM.
WAS GOING TO DELIVER. BUT THAT DECISION WAS NOT MADE AND FOR
SIGNED YET; EVERYTHING HAD BEEN DONE ORALLY, BUT AT THAT POINT
DEALINGS WITH MR. O'HARA, BECAUSE THEY STILL HAD TO PAY HIM FOR
3 o. AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU TELL MR. IACOBUCCI ABOUT THE
6 COMPANY.
7 o. AND DID YOU DISCUSS WITH MR. IACOBUCCI THE PERCENTAGES THAT
11 AND THAT POLO WOULD RECEIVE 10 PERCENT. AND THE REASON POLO
14 o. SO YOU TOLD MR. IACOBUCCI THAT YOU ALSO WOULD PAY MR. LOPEZ
16 A. RIGHT. RIGHT.
19 A. CORRECT.
6 a. AND WHAT DID YOU TELL MR. IACOBUCCI THAT THIS MONEY WOULD
7 BE PAID FOR?
10 HAVE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, AND ALSO ALFONSO LOPEZ WOULD SHARE IN
11 THOSE FEES.
13 WORDS.
15 FEES.
21 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
2 THIS MEETING?
4 IACOBUCCI SAID.
11 AT THE TOPS.
18 LOOK OVER.
23 WHATEVER--
2 THIS MEETING?
4 IACOBUCCI SAID.
11 AT THE TOPS.
18 LOOK OVER.
23 WHATEVER--
2 MEETING.
3 Q. ALL RIGHT.
4 A. THE POINTS THAT I HAD POINTED OUT, AND THAT WERE IN THE FAX
10 A. (PAUSE.)
15 A. AS A VERY WHAT? •
21
1 A. No.
2 Q. Since 19891
4 Q. 19851
5 A. 'les.
IS A. Uh-huh.
20 A. Yes.
..... . _......--
SCH f LLER & cmnD1HOmWG1II'CmIS
.----:--._------
~/,=l
~- -- -- -- ~~--- ......
_ ...... __ •. _ .......... ""'''-'.,~ ...... '' "v....J.--. ...... I.
JAN- 3 J 1991
FE!) 01 1991
BX FACS!H'ILE WII.SON. SO~~iiINI.
OQOOHICH Ii ROS"TI
Ja::rey R. ChAnin, Eaq.
Kakar " Srackett
710 San.em. Street
San Francisco, Ca11:orn1a i411l
Dear Mr. Chanin:
ReI unit.4 stBtCQ y. Harti' It 010
No. Cr. 90 0456 CAL
Thank you for your latter datad January 2g, 1991 in which you
inquira a. tc cur position concarninq tho natura or the
talaitication allaqad 1n Count riv •.
15 U.S.C.~-S1 7Sm(b) and 'Sff make Qriminal the know!n;- And
w111tul tGl.1t1oition of ~n i •• u.r ' • Qook., reQorQa, and &aQo~nt ••
In the in.tant oaS8, detendants talsitiad check request forma and
wire transfer and expan.a ~ournal e~ria. by ta11inq to reflect in
thoaa Dook., racords, and aooount. th8;1: a portion of the money paid
to Rob.rt D. O'Hara, doinq bu.in ••• -as Polo A•• cciAt •• , Ino., wa.
disbursed by Harri. corporation to p~ tor.i;n officials.
S1ncarely,
LauronCQ A. urqanacn
Chief, Fraud Seotion
criminal 01vi&ion
By:
SUttW,~
SQot.t. w:· M.~ic~yQ
Trial Attorney
JAN 3 I 1991
:" E eEl V E D
BX FACSIMILE ,...,' . . :~ 1 1Q0 1
...... \.. t,.,q..-
WILSON. SQNSINI,
Jetfrey R. Chanin, Elq. /:lOOCHleli & ROSA TI
Keker , Brockett
710 Sansome Streat
San Francisco, California 94111
s~, M~lJa......
scott w.' MaCKay r
Trial Attornay
co: ~ob.rt P. Feldman, E8q.
Micha&l L. Fayad, Eaq.
Charla. R. Sray.r, Elq.
COMPANY.
a. AND DID YOU DISCUSS WITH MR. IACOBUCCI THE PERCENTAGES THAT
AND THAT POLO WOULD RECEIVE 10 PERCENT. AND THE REASON POLO
a. SO YOU TOLD MR. IACOBUCCI THAT YOU ALSO WOULD PAY MR. LOPEZ
A. RIGHT. RIGHT.
A. CORRECT.
i!':..
~
li" .
ROSITA FLORES, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
ct'".:: .. ... .. ... . . -
Q. AND WHAT DID YOU TELL MR. IACOBUCCI THAT THIS MONEY WOULD
BE PAID FOR?
HAVE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. AND ALSO ALFONSO LOPEZ WOULD SHARE IN
THOSE FEES.
WORDS.
FEES.
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
BY m. MAC KAY:
'· .ir ·
24 IACOBUCCI SAID.
AT THE TOPS.
LOOK OVER.
WHATEVER --
WOULD YOU ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN SO MR. O'HARA CAN ANSWER
IT.
It
"'- '~
25 Q. MR. O'HARA, WHAT WAS YOUR INTENT WITH RESPECT TO THESE
8 (PAUSE.)
10 THE JURY:)
13 GO AHEAD.
14 CROSS-EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. FELDMAN:
17 A. FEEL FINE.
18 YOURSELF?
19 Q. I'M OKAY.
21 A. NEVER.
RIGHT?
5 A. NO, SIR.
9 BY MR. FELDMAN:
10 o. AND YOU HADN'T SEEN ANY SPECS BEFORE THE TRIP THAT FRANK
12 A. NO.
15 YOU?
16 A. NO.
18 IS THAT RIGHT?
19 A. YES.
20 O. AND THEN TELL THE JURY THE NAME OF ANY OTHER TELECOM
21 OFFICIAL YOU MET BE~EN THE TIME WHEN ANGULO INTRODUCED YOU AND
22 AT THE --
25 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
5 MEETING WITH THE CHIEF JUDGE AND SOME VISITING JUDGES FROM
8 O'HARA.
10 DAY'S TESTIMONY.
12 CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
15 RIGHT?
18 HARRIS; RIGHT?
19 A. CORRECT.
21 EXPENSES fOLLOW.
22 (INDICATING AT SCREEN.)
23 RIGHT?
1 A. EXPENSES?
2 Q. YEAH.
10 RIGHT?
11 A. CORRECT.
15 RIGHT?
16 A. CORRECT.
21 RIGHT?
23 MONEY TO TRAVEL.
25 THOUGHT; RIGHT?
2 IT.
4 MARCH; RIGHT?
5 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
7 CALIFORNIA; RIGHT?
8 A. TRUE.
12 A. SUPPOSEDLY, YEAH.
15 WITH NOTHING.
16 RIGHT?
18 NOTHING-.
20 FEBRUARY; RIGHT?
22 Q. AND YOU HAD -- YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE FOUR THOUSAND WORTH OF
25 Q. AND THEN YOU WANTED -- YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHAT YOU TOLD
2 A. PARTIALLY, YEAH.
4 THOUSAND A MONTH GOES OUT, FIFTY-FIVE HUNDRED YOU GIVE AWAY, AND
8 Q. AND, IN FACT, THEY DIDN'T EVEN GIVE YOU THE FOUR THOUSAND
10 A. I DON'T RECALL.
12 Q. WELL, MR. O'HARA, HOW MUCH MONEY DID THEY WIRE YOU ON MARCH
13 8TH?
18 HARRIS THINK, AND YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THEM WAS,
19 THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO INTO YOUR POCKET FOR THE BRIBE MONEY,
20 IS THAT IT?
22 IT?
25 A. UH-HUH.
3 A. RIGHT.
7 DOCUMENT S • )
10 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
12 RIGHT?
13 A. CORRECT.
17 A. YES, IT IS.
20 A. THAT'S TRUE.
24 Q. AND IN THIS INVOICE, DATED •••• A FAX LINE OF APRIL 11TH, YOU
1 A. CORRECT.
3 RIGHT?
4 A. TRUE.
7 CORRECT?
8 A. TRUE.
10 CORRECT?
11 A. TRUE.
15 A. TRUE.
17 DEFENDANTS' 368.
21 THANK YOU.
22 NO OBJECTION.
1 BY MR. FELDMAN:
5 YES, IT IS.
8 A. YES, I DO.
10 IS IT NOT?
11 A. YES, IT IS.
14 A. TRUE.
16 NOT?
18 YES, IT IS.
24 BY MR. FELDMAN:
5 A. YES, IT IS.
7 HONOR.
12 BY MR. FELDMAN:
16 CORRECT?
17 A. TRUE.
19 SCREEN.)
21 8TH FAX, YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS A VOUCHER FOR SERVICES RENDERED
23 A. TRUE.
25 RIGHT?
4 Q. RIGHT. THIS IS
8 A. ABSOLUTELY.
15 IT'S IMPORTANT.
17 NOT CROSS-EXAMINATION.
18 BY MR. FELDMAN:
19 Q. YOU HAD --
24 Q. ALL RIGHT.
1 Q. YOU ALSO TOLD THE FBI ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, 1989, THAT PAYING
9 Q. SO YOU TOLD THE FBI THAT YOU ASKED FOR DISCRETIONARY FUNDS
13 PRESENT.
16 Q. UH-HUH.
23 AROUND BOGOTA?
3 TRAVEL; RIGHT?
4 A. TRUE.
6 DOLLAR MONTHLY FEE THAT YOU ASKED FOR AS A CONSULTING FEE WASN'T
8 A. TRUE.
9 Q. OKAY.
13 A. IN TOTAL?
14 Q. JUST TELL THEM THE KINDS OF EXPENSES THAT YOU HAD TO GO OUT
18 Q. YEAH.
25 Q. OKAY.
10
) CR No. 90-0456 CAL
11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
12 Plaintiff, )
)
13 v. ) GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM
) IN ANTICIPATION OF DEFENDANTS'
14 HARRIS CORPORATION, ) MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF
JOHN D. IACOBUCCI, and ) ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO RULE
r 15
RONALD L. SCHULTZ, )
)
29
Defendants. )
V 16
________________________________ ) COURT: Hon. Charles A. Legge
17
18 I. Introduction
25 indictment.
26
:JRM OBD-IS3
MAR, S3
1 Rule 29 ( a) requires the Court to grant a motion for a
2 judgment of acquittal "if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
3 conviction." The Court must determine whether, viewing the evidence
4 in the light most favorable to the Government, the jury could
5 reasonably find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
6 United States v. Merriweather, 777 F.2d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1985),
7 cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098 (1986); United States v. Hazeem, 679 F.2d
8 770 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848 (1982). In making
9 its determination, the Court must resolve all factual disputes and
10 draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the
11 Government. United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir.
FORM OBO-IS3
MAR. S3
1 of the Colombian government;
2 3. The defendants corruptly made an interstate telephone
3 call (Count Two) and caused and directed two interstate wire
4 transfers of money in furtherance of the payment and authorization
5 of the payment of $22,845 to O'Hara (Counts Three and Four) knowing
6 that O'Hara would payor offer a portion of that money to Congressman
7 Lopez and officials of Telecom so that those officials would use
8 their influence in order to obtain telecommunications contracts for
9 Harris and DTS with the Government of Colombia; and
10 4. As charged in Count Five, the defendants knowingly and
13 request forms and wire transfer and expense journal entries, which
21 below.
22 II . Conspiracy
26 January 13, 1989 when O'Hara met with defendant Iacobucci at the
'ORM OBD-183
MAR. 83
1 offices of Warren Kremer Associates, an advertising agency in New
2 York City. Tr. 4-577. At this meeting, O'Hara made it clear to
3 Iacobucci that he was proposing an illegal agreement: "I told him
4 that what I was about to tell him I wouldn't repeat in front of
5 anybody . . . [b]ecause I thought that it may not be quite aboveboard
6 to do what I was about to propose to do." Tr. 4-580.
7 O'Hara then outlined the details of his criminal scheme to
8 bribe foreign officials of the Government of Colombia to obtain
'ORM OBD·183
MAR.83
1 receive from any contracts obtained by Harris from the Colombian
2 government. Tr. 4-585.
3 O'Hara also told Iacobucci that he would need to be paid an
4 "incidental fee" or "slush fund" to be able "to take care of people
5 in the government down there [Colombia] . . " Tr. 4-584. O'Hara
6 testified, "As I explained it to Jack [Iacobucci], it came out that
9 he told Iacobucci that the incidental fees or slush fund were "to
11 including anybody in Telecom that might have to be taken care of, and
12 also Alfonso Lopez would share in those fees." Tr. 4-586; 5-705.
22 obtain business for O'Hara and Harris. Tr. 4-570. In return for
'aRM OBD-183
MAR. 83
1 ownership interest, Tr. 1-34, GX. 1, as Harris' local representative.
2 Tr. 5-710, GX. 6. Moreover, the substitution of Compania
3 Metropolitana for Interdelta as the local Colombian representative
4 for Harris, at the direction of Congressman Lopez, further
5 corroborates the extent to which Congressman Lopez was conspiring
6 with O'Hara to violate the FCPA. Tr. 5-891 ("Alfonso [Lopez] told
20 C. 7 .
24 had met a man in New York . [who] . . . had connections with the
FORM OBD-183
MAR.83
1 take off my legal hat and put on my business hat. Look the other way
2 . is what he said." Tr. 2-95-96. Iacobucci further confirmed
3 his participation in the conspiracy when he stated to Wang on March
4 8, 1989 that with regard to the money being paid to O'Hara and the
13 America, that Harris' equipment did not qualify for the Colombian
15 Jimenez that "he had found somebody who might be able to do something
16 for us, and if I knew Mr. O'Hara." Tr. 6-1067. Moreover, Jiminez
19 early February, O'Hara told Thompson and Iacobucci that thus far DTS
20 had been going through the front door in trying to get Colombian
21 government business, O'Hara could take them through the back door to
26 FCPA, Iacobucci told Wang, in essence, that he was being fired from
FORM OBD-183
MAR. 83
1 DTS. Tr. 2-110-11. The reasonable inference to be taken from the
2 timing of Iacobucci's firing of Wang, particularly in view of Wang's
3 testimony that he was shocked because no prior indications had been
4 given to him that he had any problems that would result in his
5 termination, Tr. 2-111, is that Iacobucci fired Wang because of his
6 failure to "look the other way" about the O'Hara payments.
7 Defendant Schultz joined the conspiracy to bribe Congressman
8 Lopez and officials of Telecom, on March 1, 1989, when he met with
9 Peter Wang and told him that O'Hara had asked for money and that DTS
10 had agreed to pay. Tr. 2-102. Al though Wang warned Schultz that the
14 March 8, 1989 when Iacobucci handed him the facsimile from O'Hara,
17 GX. 5. O'Hara testified that the use of the term "incidental fees"
ORM OBD-183
MAR. 83
1 And I said: You know, that's up to Jack. Jack
certainly knows what it's for. You'd better check
2 with Jack.
3 Q. And that was the extent of the conversation?
4 Not really, because he kept pushing me to tell him
what it was about.
5
And I said -- finally I said: Look, I need the
6 funds. It's to -- take care of some people. It's
a bribe. Let's get the thing going. Go talk to
7 Jack.
8 Q. And were those the -- can you recall the exact
words that you used with Mr. -- with Mr. Schultz
9 at that time? What specifically did you tell Mr.
Schultz?
10 I said it was to take care of people in Colombia.
I said: you'd better check with Jack.
11
Whether I used the term bribe, or he said 'Do you
12 mean it's a bribe?' I'm not sure, but the word came
up in the conversation.
13
Q. And did you tell him what people you were going
14 to take care of?
FORM OBO-183
MAR.83
1 Pollok, who works with O'Hara, (in fact, as demonstrated by the
2 testimony of O'Hara noted above, it was O'Hara with whom Schultz
3 spoke) and that Pollok had told Schultz that the money, the
6 told him" . . . that the money to be paid was a bribe and the purpose
9 Harris equipment would comply, when in fact the Harris equipment does
12 him of his conversation with Pollok, Schultz handed Wang GX. 2, the
16 - NEC #5 ess
19 212-686-2914
20 O'Hara testified that GX. 2 reflected the subject matter he
25 or with Wang:
26
'ORM OBD-183
MAR. 83
1 PW: Bob O'Hara and John Pollok are, are
asking, ah, Harris to, ah, give the money to bribe,
2 ah, the government of Colombia to alter those specs
and that was really, ah, rally on my, urn
3 conscience.
4 RS: Yeah. But as it turns out, that wasn't really
I guess what they were doing .
5
6 ***
PW: But, ah, but you know Pollok came right out,
7 remember, and didn't Pollok just come right out
and tell you that it was a bribe?
8
RS: No, I think that was kind of my interpretation
9 of it . . .
10 The testimony of Wang and O'Hara, together with GX. 2, the
11 "bribe note," make it clear that Schultz willfully joined and
'aRM OBO-183
MAR. 83
1 portion of that money to either Congressman Lopez or officials of
2 Telecom.
3 Based on these authorizations, on March 9, 1989, the $5,500
4 was wired from Harris' account at National City Bank in Cleveland,
5 Ohio to O'Hara's account at Manufacturers Hanover Trust in Brooklyn,
6 New York (Tr. 5-729-30, GX. 60.) and on May 1, 1989, the $3,000. was
7 wired from Harris' account at National City Bank in Cleveland, Ohio
8 to O'Hara's account at Manufacturers Hanover Trust in Brooklyn, New
9 York (Tr. 5-781/82, GX. 62).
10 The Government's evidence has established that each of the
11 overt acts alleged in " D.1. - 17. of the Indictment occurred and
12 that each was in furtherance of the conspiracy. These overt acts
13 include the January 13, 1989 meeting between Iacobucci and O'Hara in
14 New York City; the January 16, 1989 conversation between Iacobucci
15 and Wang; the February 2, 1989 meeting between O'Hara and Iacobucci
25 O'Hara and the wiring of that money from Harris to O'Hara; and,
FORM OBD-183
MAR.83
1 payment of $3,000 in "incidental fees."
2 B. Conspiracy to Falsify the Books and Records of Harris
Corporation
3
As previously noted, the Government's evidence has clearly
4
demonstrated that 0' Hara represented to both Iacobucci (at the
5
January 13, 1989 meeting in New York City) and to Schultz (during
6
their telephone conversation on March 8, 1989) that he would "take
7
care of", or bribe, Congressman Lopez (to Iacobucci only) and
8
officials of Telecom with the "incidental fees" paid to him by Harris
9
Corporation. Nonetheless, on March 8, 1989, Schultz and Iacobucci
10
signed a check request (GX. 81) requesting that $9,500 (of which
11
$5,500 were "incidental fees") be paid to Polo as "Retainer &
12
Expenses for Mfg. Representative (Consultant). (Widen testimony,
13
3/18/91) . Schultz presented this check request to the DTS
14
Controller, Art Widen, and thereby caused the money wired to O'Hara
15
to be booked in April 1989 as an international sales expense for Polo
16
in the DTS general ledger in the account designated "Professional and
17
Outside Services." (GX. 75; Widen testimony, 3/18/91).
18
Similarly, on May 1, 1989, while still knowing the true
19
purpose of "incidental fees," Schultz and Iacobucci signed a second
20
check request (GX. 82) requesting that $13,345 (of which $3,000 were
21
"incidental fees" payable for O'Hara's activities in March 1989) be
22
paid to Polo from an "International Sales" account. (Widen testimony,
23
3/18/91). Schultz again presented this check request to the DTS
24
Controller and thereby caused the money wired to O'Hara to be booked
25
in June 1989 as an international sales expense for Polo in the DTS
26
'ORM OBD-183
MAR.83
1 general ledger in the account designated "Professional and Outside
2 Services." GX. 76; Widen testimoy, 3/18/91).
3 In each instance, the clear inference to be taken from these
4 transactions is that Iacobucci and Schultz, knowingly falsified the
5 check requests and the two DTS general ledger journal entries
6 reflecting the debits to Polo Associates based on those check
7 requests (GX. 75 - general ledger detail - 3/31/89; GX. 76 - general
8 ledger detail - 5/26/89) by failing to reflect, although they knew
9 it to be a fact, that a portion of the payments to O'Hara were for
10 foreign officials. Instead, the defendants falsely described those
11 expenses as "Retainer & Expenses for Mfg. Representative
12 (Consultant) ," or "International Sales" expenses, or Outside and
13 Professional Services for Polo when they knew full well that such a
FORM OBO-183
MAR 83
1 Three and Four. In each instance, the defendants caused the use of
2 or used a means or instrumentality of interstate commerce (Count Two
3 - the interstate telephone call between Schultz and O'Hara on March
4 8, 1989, which Iacobucci directed or caused Schultz to make; Counts
5 Three and Four - the interstate wire of funds between the Harris bank
6 account in Cleveland, Ohio and the O'Hara bank account in Brooklyn,
7 New York caused by the check requests made by Iacobucci and Schultz
8 on March 8, 1989 and May 1, 1989) corruptly, in furtherance of the
9 authorization of payment and payment of "incidental fees" to O'Hara.
10 As previously discussed, the defendants both authorized the
16 their January 13, 1989 meeting in New York and he advised Schultz of
20 aware or had a firm belief that O'Hara had offered or promised to pay
23 defendants acted knowingly as they were aware that there was a high
'ORM 080,183
MAR.83
1 to use the incidental fees to pay foreign officials of Telecom, the
10 check requests establishes that they aided and abetted the accounting
14 V. Conclusion
25
26
aRM OBO-183
MAR.83
1
2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
3 I hereby certify that on March ~, 1991, I served the
foregoing Government Memorandum in Anticipation of Defendants' Rule
4 29 Motion by transmitting said document to counsel for the defendants
by messenger at the following addresses:
5
Michael L. Fayad, Esq.
6 McKenna & Cuneo
One Market Plaza
7 Steuart Street Tower, 27th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
8
Jeffrey R. Chanin, Esq.
9 Keker & Brockett
710 Sansome Street
10 San Francisco, California 94111
14
Scott . MacKa
15 Trial Attorney
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FORM OBD-183
MAR. 83
,
,,'t
" ~..1
} 1 8-1389
3 NORTHERN DISTRICT
15
16
17
18
19
20 ORIGINAL
21
22
23
(.
;
)
24
~"41
''
/..
".:::..-.; ...
. '-
.-",
".",
~
25
1 A P PEA RAN C E S:
7
FOR THE DEFENDANT KEKER & BROCKETT
8 IACOBUCCI: BY: JEFFREY CHANIN, ESQ.
AND JULIA BOAZ COOPER, ESQ.
9 710 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
10
FOR THE DEFENDANT WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
11 HARRIS CORPORATION: BY: ROBERT P. FELDMAN, ESQ.
AND JANET M. CRAYCROFT, ESQ.
12 TWO PALO ALTO SQUARE
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94305
13 AND
Me KENNA & CUNEO
14 MICHAEL L. FAYAD
1575 EYE STREET, N. W.
15 WASHINGTON, D. C. 2005
16
FOR THE DEFENDANT COB LANTZ , CAHEN, MC CABE & BREYER
17 SCHULTZ: BY: CHARLES BREYER, ESQ.
AND
18 JEFFREY S. COGEN, ESQ.
222 KEARNY STREET
19 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108
20
25
4 JURY.)
8 RETURN TO COURTROOM.)
17 MOTIONS THIS MORNING, BUT WHAT I RECEIVED LATE YESTERDAY WAS THE
8 DOUBT.
9 HARRIS SIDE OF THE TABLE TO DO THE THINGS THAT ARE ACCUSED. AND
16 OF THE TERM. THAT IS, HE'S NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF OVER A PERIOD
19 WORLD, WHO TRY TO POSITION THEMSELVES INTO DEALS. THAT IS, THEY
20 SEE A POTENTIALITY FOR A DEAL AND SOME ROLE FOR THEM IN A DEAL,
21 AND THEY INSERT THEMSELVES INTO THE DEAL, AND WORK BOTH ENDS TO
22 MAKE A DEAL.
6 HARRIS CORPORATION.
14 THE DEAL?
3 SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT HARRIS AND •••• WELL, HARRIS THROUGH ITS
13 FIVE?
18 THEM.
1 BRIEFCASE, OR HIS BOOKS, AND WALK OUT THE DOOR; HE KEPT TALKING.
5 WAS A DEAL.
14 BUSINESS FOR.
17 THINGS.
24 PAY HIM SOME COMPENSATION FOR THE ARRANGEMENTS THAT WERE FINALLY
2 QUITE WHAT ••• THAT WAS TO BE FOR. SO THAT'S ONE THING THAT •••
17 SOMEBODY LIKE WANG COMES TO THEM AND SAYS: "I'VE GOT SOME HOT
18 INFORMATION," AND THEN THEY MEET O'HARA, AND O'HARA HANDS IN HIS
20 TO PROCEED.
4 BUSINESS, HE WOULD DO IT. AND HAVING STARTED DOWN THAT TRAIL •••
8 I'VE HANDLED IN SIX -- DURING SIX PLUS YEARS HERE ON THE BENCH,
10 AWAY CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE I FELT THAT THERE IS NOT ••• EVIDENCE
12 FULL RULE 29. BUT I MUST SAY IN THIS CASE I'M TEMPTED.
20 CONVERSATIONS WITH WANG, TOGETHER WITH THE BRIBE NOTE; AND THE
21 AGREEMENT.
24 THING, AS YOU CAN SEE. AND I'M NOT PRECLUDING YOU FROM ARGUING
{
~.
25 ANYTHING ELSE; AND INDEED SOME OF YOUR MOTIONS HAVE BEEN MORE
3 SEPARATELY.
8 SPECIFIC THINGS THAT I RAISED. AND WHY YOU FEEL THE EVIDENCE IS
17 MATTERS THAT YOU WERE TROUBLED BY, RATHER THAN TELL YOU WHY I
22 IN THE INDICTMENT.
24 FROM MR. O'HARA THAT THE PAYMENT FOR THE EXPENSES WAS BASICALLY
4 WHY THEY WENT DOWN THERE, TO SEE WHETHER THE -- IN HIS WORDS:
6 WISHED TO BID, AND FIND OUT WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO DOWN THERE,
11 COMPANIES, WITHOUT GETTING INTO THAT NOW -- IN OUR VIEW THE MAY
21 WHEN O'HARA VISITED DTS FOR THE SECOND TIME, THAT, ACCORDING TO
22 STEVENSON AND O'HARA, THOMPSON SAID: YOU WILL NOW SEARCH FOR A
7 WAS DEAD.
11 MIND.
19 AND ••• THE FACT THAT THAT INVOICE WAS PAID AFTER ANY INTEREST IN
22 AND BY THE FACT OF WHAT THE EVENTUAL AGREEMENT WAS, IN OUR VIEW
24 INCIDENTAL FEES.
(
25 THE COURT: WELL, THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES ••• I THINK,
3 ARGUE. BUT ••• HOW COULD THAT BE? THERE WAS NO -- I MEAN, THE
4 GOVERNMENT'S--
6 SAY IT WAS?
15 TESTIFIED -- IS A RIPOFF.
17 BUT --
19 WAS PAYING?
5 THAT JUST DON'T COME TO MY MIND NOW THAT ARE JUST NONSENSE.
15 AND HINDSIGHT FOR A -- YOU'RE ASKING ME: WHY DID THEY THINK
24 WASN'T.
\
25 AND IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID THAT WE WOULD HAVE -- AND
4 ON.
7 WAS AN OPPORTUNITY.
17 HAS BEEN OUR POSITION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THE MOST
20 TELECOM.
25 BEFORE THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE. THE FINAL FORMAL AGREEMENT WHICH
5 THAT WELL, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT; IT'S CLEAR -- THAT WHEN THEY
6 CAME BACK FROM TELECOM THERE WERE DRAFTS OF THAT CONTRACT WHICH
8 MR. O'HARA SAID THEY SENT DRAFTS BACK AND FORTH. AND
9 YOU'VE GOT THE CHART THAT SHOWS THE COMPLETE DIFFERENCE IN THE
10 FINAL AGREEMENT --
15 DOLLARS.
18 PAYMENT.
16 EXCEPT THAT I THINK WE'RE NOT AT THIS STAGE •••• I MEAN, THE
20 DON'T HAVE TO PROVE WHY PETER WANG WAS FIRED -- WE DON'T HAVE TO
21 PROVE WHY THAT MONEY WAS PAID IF THERE'S NO PROOF AT ALL THAT IT
10 NOT SURE THE WORD IS PREFERENCE, BUT I'VE USED THE ABSOLUTE
11 WRONG APPROACH.
22 MAY PAYMENT -- DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CASE GETS TO THE JURY.
2 WANG, AND MR. SCHULTZ' CONVERSATIONS WITH WANG AT THE TIME THIS
7 MR. O'HARA THAT MR. IACOBUCCI SAID: THIS DEAL CAN'T BE DONE
10 CORPORATION DID WITH THIS DEAL; THAT IS, IT WENT TO PETER WANG.
17 THOUGHT IN JANUARY.
18 YOU HAVE CASES BEFORE YOU WHERE THE FACT THAT THERE
9 OF TIME AND NEVER AGREED, THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULED THAT THE
12 AGREES WITH THAT~ THE GOVERNMENT, YOU, AND I. AND, THAT IS,
15 AGREEMENT.
18 CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. WANG AND MR. SCHULTZ ' CONVERSATIONS WITH
21 THE OPPOSITE WAY, SINCE WHAT THEY WERE ASKING WANG TO DO WAS TO
3 YOU SAID, IACOBUCCI AND O'HARA MET IN NEW YORK. AND WHO KNOWS
7 MILLION TIMES.
13 YOU'VE SEEN ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT APPEAR ON IT, ALL THE CHICKEN
20 PROPER WAY. HE BEGINS THE PROCESS ON MARCH 1ST, AND STAMPS THE
22 IS SENT.
1 DEAL IS DRAFTED.
4 SAYS IS: WE CAN'T HAVE A DEAL UNTIL THE LAWYERS DRAFT IT. I
12 HIMSELF, SAID THAT HE DID NOT THINK HE WAS WORKING FOR HARRIS
11 RESULTED IN AN AGREEMENT.
20 THAT IS --
23 THAT THE MAY 1ST PAYMENT WAS FOR A -- WAS CORRUPTLY PAID FOR AN
4 IT MUST PROVE THE ACT OR DECISION SOUGHT, AND THAT IT WAS SOUGHT
17 AND O'HARA.
23 BUT WHEN YOU COMBINE THE NOTE AND YOU COMBINE THE FACT
5 COMMENTS ABOUT IT, BUT LET ME SAY -- LET ME SAY SEVERAL THINGS
6 ABOUT THAT.
18 O'HARA WHEN YOU ASKED ABOUT ONE OF THE OTHER SUBJECTS WAS THAT
20 THE FACT THAT THERE WASN'T AN AGREEMENT IS WHAT SHOULD CARRY THE
21 DAY.
24 CONTROL, NOT ••• FOR EXAMPLE, MR. O'HARA'S STATE OF MIND, OR FOR
\
25 THAT MATTER MR. WANG'S STATE OF MIND. WHAT CONTROLS IS WHETHER
18 A CONSPIRACY COUNT.
21 PORTION OF THIS CASE IS GONE, AND YOU'RE LEFT WITH THE MOST ••••
17 THREE.
7 WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN SAID, WAS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF OR THREE
14 DOLLAR PAYMENT.
22 CALL WITH MR. O'HARA. WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN SAID, HE APPROVED
24 UNDERSTANDING WAS.
4 WITH THAT.
18 COULD CONCLUDE GUILT HERE, COULDN'T HAVE TAKEN PLACE. THAT IS,
20 THAT O'HARA SAID THE THINGS THAT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE SAID, OR THAT
7 MIND, IN HIS MIND THAT SOMETHING WRONG WAS OCCURRING, AND THAT
9 THE MARCH --
19 AUTHORIZATION?
21 SCHULTZ AND WANG WAS THE ONE AT WHICH THE BRIBE NOTE --
5 MR. BREYER: -- THE DAY THAT WANG WAS FIRED, AND ALSO
6 THE DAY
9 THE AGREEMENT
9
10 THE COURT: UH-HUH.
12 DRAW UP AN AGREEMENT.
15 SAYS AND YOU CAN LOOK AT PAGE 2 VOLUME 2, PAGE 102 THROUGH
19 HEARD EARLIER, AND THEN THIS DOCUMENT. AND WHAT DOES HE SAY?
4 MOTIVE.
6 HERE. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU CAN'T TAKE
16 COMMENT?
20 LET ME SEE HOW TO SAY THIS, IN THE -- GIVEN THE CONTEXT THAT
21 WE'RE IN.
3 UNDERSTAND THAT.
7 NOTHING.
9 JANUARY. AND TWO GUYS WENT TO COLOMBIA TO FIND OUT THERE WAS NO
10 BUSINESS, AND CAME BACK AND TURNED THE MATTER OVER TO LAWYERS
25 AS OPPOSED TO
7 (LAUGHTER.)
13 ESTABLISHED. AND OF COURSE I THINK YOU CAN SEE FROM OUR PAPERS
16 MR. MAC KAY: AND ••• IT'S OUR POSITION THAT THE
17 EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR THAT BETWEEN JANUARY 13TH, WHEN MR. IACOBUCCI
18 MET WITH O'HARA, AND MARCH 9TH OF 1989, WHEN THE NINETY-FIVE
22 OUT AT THE 1-13 MEETING BETWEEN MR. IACOBUCCI AND MR. O'HARA.
25 THE PROPOSAL.
6 HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF MR. WANG, WHO INDICATED THAT MR. IACOBUCCI
7 SAID TO HIM: I'VE MET THIS MAN, O'HARA -- OR I'VE MET A MAN IN
10
8 NEW YORK WITH CONNECTIONS TO THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT, AND YOU
15 MARCH 1ST, WHERE MR. SCHULTZ TELLS MR. WANG THAT THEY'RE GOING
16 TO MAKE A PAYMENT TO THE MAN IN NEW YORK NAMED O'HARA. AND MR.
19 INFERENCE FROM THAT, AND FROM THE FACT THAT SOON THEREAFTER THAT
20 DAY MR. WANG IS FIRED, IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THAT SHOWS THAT MR.
21 SCHULTZ WENT AND DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH MR. IACOBUCCI. AND
22 THE INFERENCE WAS THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT MR. WANG WOULD CAUSE
24 THE COURT: WELL THEN, WHY DID THEY GIVE HIM THE JOB
6 DAY, WHERE YOU HAVE THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. WANG AND MR.
11 WANG'S TESTIMONY.
18 BETWEEN MR. SCHULTZ AND MR. O'HARA ON THE TELEPHONE, WHERE MR.
20 OUTLINES THAT THESE INCIDENTAL FEES ARE A BRIBE. AND THE NOTE,
24 MONEY WAS AUTHORIZED BY MR. SCHULTZ AND MR. IACOBUCCI BEFORE MR.
11 CONVERSATION.
15 THAT HE CLEARLY KNEW WHAT THE INCIDENTAL FEES WERE FOR PRIOR TO
16 THAT.
7 THE NEXT DAY. AND MR. SCHULTZ DID NOTHING TO STOP IT.
11 DO YOU RECONCILE THE BASIC FACT THAT NO MONEY EVER REALLY GOT
12 PAID?
16 WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE THINGS THAT THEY STARTED TALKING
19 AND HAD OVER THE FULL SPECTRUM OF THE EVENTS THIS VIEW OF IT
10 MR. MAC KAY: BUT THERE WERE TWO PAYMENTS, YOUR HONOR.
11 TWO PAYMENTS.
16 ON MARCH 8TH.
22 PAYMENTS.
9 SAY THAT.
13 CLEAR THAT MR. O'HARA WAS IN FACT SCAMMING THE COMPANY TO SOME
21 ATTACKED.
22 HE --
4 MR. LOPEZ.
5 NOW, THE MERE FACT THAT THEY NEVER GOT ANY BUSINESS,
13 POSITION
20 OF THE MATTER
25 MONEY GOT TRANSFERRED. MAYBE YOU CAN ARGUE ON MAY THE 1ST.
3 MR. MAC KAY: THE FACT THAT THEY MADE THE TWO
6 FROM O'HARA DETAILING HIS PROPOSAL. THE FACT THAT THEY PAID
14 BELIEVE.
25 HUNDRED TO O'HARA.
2 MR. MAC KAY: YOU'RE ASKING THE WRONG GUY, YOUR HONOR.
8 CIVIL BASIS, YOU KNOW, CAN I REALLY SAY THAT'S ADEQUATE EVIDENCE
24 WITH RESPECT TO THE TERMS LAID OUT IN THIS PROPOSAL. AND -- AND
25 YOU SEE IT FROM THE EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR. YOU SEE IT -- IN FACT
2 THERE.
4 REFLECTING THESE TERMS. MR. WANG DID THAT. AND THAT'S THE
7 MR. MAC KAY: AND THEN YOU SEE IT TALKS ABOUT THE
8 INCIDENTAL FEES. AND YOU TIE THE INCIDENTAL FEES INTO THE
21
22
23
24
2 IS AS FOLLOWS:
6 TO MR. O'HARA.
10 MARCH 8TH.
20 SOME KIND; THAT THEY WERE CUTTING O'HARA DOWN, BUT, NOW, YOU'RE
22 MONEY.
24 THEORY.
5 THE MERE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT COMES AFTER THE BRIBE DOESN'T
6 MEAN THAT THEY STILL DON'T HAVE THE REQUISITE INTENT, AND THERE
7 IS A D. C. CIRCUIT CASE.
13 PAYMENT WITH SOMETHING? WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT YOU ARE
17 YOU MAY RECALL FROM THE EXHIBIT, WAS ACTUALLY INCIDENTAL FEES.
18 AND WE FEEL THAT AT THE TIME THAT THIS MONEY WAS WIRED, IT WENT
24 MR. MAC KAY: AND JUST ONE POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE
2 MR. SCHULTZ BROUGHT HIM THE FIRST AUTHORIZATION FOR $9500. MR.
11 I GUESS ONE OTHER POINT I '0 LIKE TO MAKE, YOUR HONOR, AND
13 THAT WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS TWO, THREE AND FOUR, THE INTENT OF
15 THE FACT THAT O'HARA MAY HAVE WANTED TO POCKET THE MONEY,
23 THREE, AT LEAST COUNTS TWO, THREE AND FOUR FALL BECAUSE WITH
24 THAT, YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY CORRUPT INTENT OR ANY KNOWING ACTION.
5 AGREE TO THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL THAT MR. O'HARA MADE
6 WITH THAT 2-28 FAX, YOU STILL, WITH RESPECT TO COUNT TWO, THREE
12 TRYING TO SLICE IT TOO MANY WAYS, BUT THAT'S NOT CONTINGENT UPON
4 DEFINES KNOWING.
8 TO ESTABLISH AN AGREEMENT.
10 LANGUAGE.
1 ON THAT.
13 AND (B)(5)?
18
23 CRIMINAL?
Rn~ 1 TA 1=1 nCI=C: n r r I,.... I 11.1 ,....nll~T'" ~." ... I""\n"""''''n ..............
RULE 29 MOTION 8-1367
13 (PAUSE. )
15 ENGLISH LANGUAGE OR ANY LANGUAGE IS THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU USE A
20 THERE WAS THERE ILLEGAL AGREEMENT, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT
23 PAGE 1226, AND I OOULD SAY THIS IS THE DIRECT EXAMINATION. AND
6 AND MR. WIDEN SAYS, "I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS AN
8 THE $9500."
14 "YES, HE DID".
4
15 "HOW DID HE RESPOND?
18 ~RE FOR EXPENSES AND THEY WERE FOR THE MODEL REP FEE. I'M NOW
7 SMALLER POINTS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, ON THAT, I'M NOT GIVING
12 CONCLUSION.
17 THERE IS ANY
20 KNOVVLEDGE.
8 SCHULTZ WAS TOLD ON MARCH 1ST BY PETER WANG, BECAUSE THEY ARE
13 UNTIL WE GET TO THE FEBRUARY 28 FAX AND THE MARCH 1ST MEETING.
4 TWO COUNTS THREE AND FOUR COULD STAND, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS
5 THAT?
20 STATEMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY CORRECT, AND WHAT THE CIRCUIT HAS SAID
22 MEANS A QUID PRO QUO. I GUESS, SUPPOSE ONE CAN ARGUE WHICH
23 CAME FIRST AND WHICH CAME SECOND. I THINK QUID PRO QUO IS A
12 8TH, WHICH INCLUDED SOME PORTION FOR INCIDENTAL FEES, WAS AGREED
25 THERE WAS NEVER ANY DISCUSSION LIKE THAT WITH MR. IACOBUCCI
2 THAT THESE PAYMENTS ~RE MADE THE DAY BEFORE THE STAFF PEOPLE
4 OUT THE WHOLE THING, TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY CONTRACT, IT SEEMS
6 HAD A MEETING OF THE MINDS WITH MR. O'HARA THAT THAT MONEY WAS
7 GOING TO PAY TELECOM OFFICIALS. IT WAS JUST ALL TOO PRE MATURE.
9 MINDS OTHER THAN TO PAY MONEY TO MR. O'HARA, NOT THE KIND OF
11 STATUTE.
19 IN TWO PLACES.
13 IS.
16 EXHIBIT 52, YOU RECALL, WAS DRAFTED BY O'HARA, NEVER SENT, BUT
16 ONLY --
19 CONTRACT CASE, AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF WAYS THAT A
9 PURPOSE IS, WHAT WANG SAYS AT PAGE 2-204 THAT SCHULTZ SAID
19 REMAIN TOTALLY CONFUSED ABOUT HOW ANYBODY CAN SAY THAT THERE
23 CONTRACT THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN CARE ABOUT, THAT DIDN'T EVEN
1 HAVE PAID A BRIBE ABOUT. PERHAPS, THAT'S THE BEST WAY OF SAYING
7 THEN THE COMPANY FORMED ITS INTENT, SHALL WE SAY, NOT TO ENGAGE
10 YOUR HONOR.
13 BRIBE MONEY, THAT IN MAY, ONE PARTY CAN PAY THE OTHER SOME OF
19 DEAL TO BE DONE.
22 OFFENSE.
6 WERE NOT PURSUING TELECOM CONTRACTS AND NEVER DID. THERE WAS NO
17 AND I COULD ADDRESS IT, BUT I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO, BECAUSE YOU
19 ABOUT THIS PAYMENT AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT THROUGH SUCH PAINS
20 BEFORE AND DURING THE TRIAL, BECAUSE ONCE WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS
24 ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
5 ANYBODY?
7 THERE TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY, AND THEN THEY HAVE HIM
12 COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, AND KNOW WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO
13 SAY WE AGREE WITH YOU THIS MORNING, BUT I COULDN'T AGREE WITH
18 BEEN PURSUED.
23 WE ARE FACED WITH MUCH MORE TESTIMONY AND A GREAT DEAL MORE TIME
25 DIDN'T HAPPEN.
6 ALL RIGHT.
11 (RECESS.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3 JURY)
23 IACOBUCCI, AND SCHULTZ ON THE ONE HAND, AND O'HARA ON THE OTHER,
8 BOTH EARLIER ON THE RECORD AND NOW, I JUST DON'T THINK THERE'S
11 ATTORNEYS HERE; THE U.S. ATTORNEYS, OR THE FBI. THEY DID THEIR
20 IS NOT AN EASY DECISION WHICH I'M MAKING, AND IT'S IN MANY WAYS
25 IACOBUCCI AND MR. SCHULTZ, AND I DARE SAY ANY OTHER HARRIS
5 KNOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES, AND I 'M SURE WILL, BRING SUCH
2
6 CASES WHERE THEY BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES IT. AND IF
11 THE ACTION, AND THE TRIAL OF THE ACTION WILL HAVE SOME GENERAL
19 THERE WAS NO ••• CONSPIRACY BETWEEN O'HARA ON THE ONE HAND, AND
5 BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU REMAIN WHERE YOU ARE, WITH NO
13 I HAVE SOME NEWS FOR YOU TODAY THAT SOME OF YOU MAY
14 VIEW AS GOOD NEWS, SOME OF YOU MAY VIEW AS BAD NEWS. I'LL GIVE
15 YOU THE BOTTOM LINE, AND THEN I'LL BACK UP FROM THERE.
22 DECISION.
4 GOOD NEWS FOR YOU, I'M SURE, TO KNOW THAT YOUR TIME IS NOW FREE.
8 TO GET YOU TO THIS POINT AND THEN TELL YOU THAT YOU DON'T NEED
9 TO DECIDE IT.
10 I'M SORRY FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S THE WAY OUR SYSTEM
12 THE JURY AND THE JUDGE THAT I TOLD YOU ABOUT DURING THE FIRST
20 SCHULTZ.
9 SUFFICIENT.
11 YOU CAN GO TO THE JURY ROOM WITH MR. SANTOS, AND GIVE
13 AND THEN AT THAT TIME YOU ARE FREE TO TALK WITH ANY OF
15 WITH.
19 THEY WILL WAIT FOR YOU HERE IN THE COURTROOM, AND I KNOW WILL BE
22 APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR HAVING -- FOR HAVING TO TAKE THIS AWAY FROM
23 YOU, AND NOT LET YOU DECIDE THIS AFTER THE PERIOD OF TIME YOU
2 THANK YOU.
3 ALL RIGHT.
4 COURT IS ADJOURNED.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CALI FORN I A, 450 GOl DEN GATE AVENUE, SAN FRANC I SCO, CALI FORN I A,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
ROS I TA FlO!Ekl.
~ --Q~.Luz.'
CARL R. PLI NE