Friday, January 7, 2011

Judge (Again) Significantly Rejects DOJ's Recommendation In Sentencing Leo Winston Smith

It has become a broken-record statement by now - a judge has significantly rejected the DOJ's sentencing recommendation in an FCPA enforcement action. (See here and here for prior posts).

In September 2009, as described in the DOJ release (here), Leo Winston Smith (the former Director of Sales and Marketing for Pacific Consolidated Industries) pleaded guilty to charges related to the bribery of a U.K. Ministry of Defense official in order to obtain lucrative equipment contracts with the U.K. Royal Air Force, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. (Smith also pleaded guilty to corruptly obstructing and impeding the due administration of the internal revenue laws.).

The DOJ sought a 37 month sentence.

In his sentencing memorandum, Smith respectfully requested a term of probation with appropriate conditions. His attorney, Edward Patrick Swan Jr. of Luce Forward (here), noted as follows. "The prison term of 37 months recommended by the government is disproportionate to most of the other FCPA cases prosecuted by the Department of Justice" and that the "great majority of the sentences imposed in similar cases, and even in cases involving much larger bribe amounts, have been generally much less than what the government is recommending in this case."

In early December 2010, U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford (C.D. Calif) sentenced Smith to six months imprisonment, followed by six months of home confinement, and three years of supervised release. (See here).

Just as it did not issue a release in connection with the Elkin and Green sentences, the DOJ did not issue a release in connection with Smith's sentence.

Smith's co-conspirator, Martin Self (here), was sentenced to two years probation in November 2008 (see here).

3 comments:

  1. To begin with, none of them were guilty of the rumers alledged against them by the companies former CFO and COO.
    What an absolute injustice against some very fine persons

    ReplyDelete
  2. Case No. SA CR 07-69-AG
    DEFENDANT LEE SMITH’S
    RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO
    THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE
    TO THE PRESENTENCE REPORT
    FOR DEFENDANT LEOWINSTON
    SMITH [DOCKET NO. 95]
    Date: March 18, 2010


    Read the above and then decide for your self

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have read the above docket entry. I am not sure what your point is, please feel free to share so that others can benefit from your viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete