The Conrad Black trial results: the jury’s in

The Conrad Black trial results: the jury's in

The results of the Conrad Black trial make it 1:0 to the jury system

After years of hearing commentators unfairly criticise juries for the
failings of incompetent fraud prosecutions, it was great to see our US
colleagues use a jury to good effect.

Getting a fraud conviction out of a jury should not be difficult ­ but there
are some key points that prosecutors should consider.

If you only have the evidence of a tainted co-accused do not place the
evidence in front of a jury! You need documentary or electronic evidence to win
in fraud trials, for example video evidence of people removing documents, emails
etc. If you have a substantive offence, such as false accounting, then charge
it. If you do not have a substantive offence do not take a punt and charge
conspiracy to defraud because you will lose.

In my experience juries get decisions right. Often we believe that somebody
has committed a crime but, if there is not evidence beyond reasonable doubt,
then that person should not be convicted.

There are not two standards of dishonesty i.e. there is not a higher standard
for people who commit complex frauds. In the UK virtually every word in the
Theft Act is defined in subsequent sections – what constitutes property, intent
to permanently deprive, etc. The word ‘dishonesty’ is deliberately not defined
but left to the ‘man on the London Omnibus’ based on the circumstances of the
case. If the prosecution cannot simplify a fraud case to show an action was
dishonest then that prosecution will fail.

My experience of viewing personnel files as part of investigating fraud cases
over the last 20 years is that middle and senior management are still dodging
out of jury service.

If this was tightened up (as in the US) it would be irritating for firms and
individuals in the short term, but in the long run it would be good for the
City. This added wealth of experience would enhance fraud juries and make more
managers aware of fraud.

If you cannot establish your case beyond reasonable doubt then the correct
forum is the civil courts where you only have to prove your case on the balance
of probabilities. You shouldn’t take away an individual’s freedom unless you can
prove your case beyond reasonable doubt.

If you have a strong case backed by first rate prosecution the jury system
will give you the right verdict, as the Black trial has proved. Tinker with this
system at your peril.

Simon Bevan is the national head of BDO Stoy
Hayward’s fraud services unit

Share

Subscribe to get your daily business insights

Resources & Whitepapers

Why Professional Services Firms Should Ditch Folders and Embrace Metadata
Professional Services

Why Professional Services Firms Should Ditch Folders and Embrace Metadata

3y

Why Professional Services Firms Should Ditch Folde...

In the past decade, the professional services industry has transformed significantly. Digital disruptions, increased competition, and changing market ...

View resource
2 Vital keys to Remaining Competitive for Professional Services Firms

2 Vital keys to Remaining Competitive for Professional Services Firms

3y

2 Vital keys to Remaining Competitive for Professi...

In recent months, professional services firms are facing more pressure than ever to deliver value to clients. Often, clients look at the firms own inf...

View resource
Turn Accounts Payable into a value-engine
Accounting Firms

Turn Accounts Payable into a value-engine

3y

Turn Accounts Payable into a value-engine

In a world of instant results and automated workloads, the potential for AP to drive insights and transform results is enormous. But, if you’re still ...

View resource
Digital Links: A guide to MTD in 2021
Making Tax Digital

Digital Links: A guide to MTD in 2021

3y

Digital Links: A guide to MTD in 2021

The first phase of Making Tax Digital (MTD) saw the requirement for the digital submission of the VAT Return using compliant software. That’s now behi...

View resource