Political insider Cantrell faces imposing charges
But honest services counts might be easiest ones to dodge
Post-Tribune (IN)
April 1, 2007
Rivals of Lake County political insider Robert J. Cantrell have long compared him to the most wiley and corrupt political players in the country.
And Cantrell can now be lumped in with a slate of unlucky political heavyweights: Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff; former Illinois Gov. George Ryan; Chicago patronage boss Robert Sorich; or, closer to home, the members of East Chicago's Sidewalk Six.
Like Cantrell, all were charged with, among other things, the controversial crime of honest services fraud.
The notion that Lake County residents expect a square deal from their elected officials might seem questionable, even to Northwest Indiana voters who have for generations seen scoundrel upon scoundrel marched from public office to federal prison.
Defense attorneys in the Ryan, Sorich and Abramoff cases all have complained that the federal statute, which has been revised several times after successful Supreme Court challenges, is too broad.
It also has been highly successful: Ryan was convicted and Abramoff pleaded guilty. The Sidewalk Six defendants beat the honest services counts, but were convicted on other charges.
A section of the federal fraud statute says that citizens have a right to the intangible honest labor on their behalf by public officials. Those officials can break that public trust -- and face criminal charges -- even if they don't accept a bribe or steal property, or cause any tangible loss, complains DePaul University law professor Andrea Lyon.
"The statute is so amorphous that anything can be fraud. Taking a bribe, that's pretty clear. Not showing up for work, also," she said.
"(Honest services) basically allows a conviction for a crime conceivably based solely on the jury's distaste for the political process."
So Cantrell, who also has been charged with counts of insurance fraud and tax evasion, finds himself facing an imposing set of charges if he heads to trial. But the honest services counts might be the easiest ones to dodge.
The case against Cantrell
For the most part, the case against Cantrell could be easy enough to prove.
Prosecutors allege Cantrell never filed paperwork with the state disclosing his financial stake in Fromm's Addiction and Family Care, which from 2001 to 2004 paid him more than $270,000 in cash and free health insurance for two unnamed associates in exchange for help getting contracts with North Township, local courts and municipalities.
The indictment also charges Cantrell did not claim more than $150,000 of that income, and that he broke federal mail fraud laws when he received checks from AFC through the mail and committed wire fraud when he deposited the allegedly ill-gotten gains into his account.
Financial and insurance records from Fromm that are already under subpoena should show what Cantrell was paid, and Fromm has entered a guilty plea and has agreed to cooperate with federal investigators -- and possibly testify to any off-the-books payments.
Likewise, the mail and wire fraud counts are typically easy to show using bank statements, and the insurance fraud charges can be corroborated with documents from Fromm and her insurance company. The bank records and checks should show what Cantrell earned, versus what he put down on his tax forms.
In fact, the insurance and tax counts can easily stand on their own. The rest of the prosecution's case hinges on proving honest services fraud, and that is not open and shut, said Valparaiso University Law School professor David Vandercoy.
"Whether he committed honest services fraud, that he had a position that gave him a financial obligation to the citizens, is certainly an arguable point," Vandercoy said, noting that Cantrell held three job titles during his four years at North Township.
If he was a low-level employee, particularly one who had no responsibilities related to counseling services or awarding contracts, Cantrell might not have been required to file the conflict of interest paperwork.
"If he was at such a low level, he may have done something wrong," Vandercoy said. "But it might not be something that comes under the federal honest services law."
If there was no honest services fraud, Cantrell's alleged "scheme" to make money from AFC becomes just doing business, and his paychecks from AFC could be mailed and cashed without committing fraud, either.
Of course, Cantrell's boss, former trustee Greg Cvitkovich, has already pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges and is serving a federal prison term and could testify for prosecutors about Cantrell's role in choosing AFC for township work.
Perhaps worse still, township employees can testify to the type of counseling they received from AFC, which included leaving work to get massages. That's evidence prosecutors likely wouldn't have been able to introduce as easily if Cantrell had only been charged with tax evasion and insurance fraud, and evidence that also won't sit well with jurors seated in uncomfortable courtroom chairs for long hours, Vandercoy notes.
"(Honest services charges) are a tactical decision as well," he said. "It let's you put in evidence that a public official, a public employee, is defrauding the public, and that's never going to go over well."
No comments:
Post a Comment