John Haggerty, a former aide to Mayor Michael Bloomberg was accused of stealing $1.1
million during the last election by promising to use the money to organize "ballot security" through the Independence Party. On the face of it things looked simple: Bloomberg provided Haggerty with funds for arranging for poll watchers based on a budget submitted by Haggerty. Haggerty used
$600K to buy a house.
On the second day of deliberation, the jury asked for clarification: who was the victim? Huh?
The defense argued that once Haggerty got the money Bloomberg had no say over how the money could be used. I don't know nearly enough about the law to understand how charges are assigned, but promising to do something for money and then not doing it violates something otherwise there are some great career options to those of us who can lie with a straight face.
The devil, of course, was lurking in the details: the victim might have been the Independence Party which should have receive the money for watching the polls or the trust fund from which the money came. The defense was arguing that the prosecution's charges were wrong. Unsaid was that their client was guilty; the prosecutors had erred by selecting the wrong victim. It would only be a matter of time, then, until the prosecution, recognizing the error of its ways, came up with the correct indictment and Haggerty would find himself a guest of the state.
The defense tried to make the source of the funds an issue. Because Bloomberg used personal funds, not campaign funds the defense kept implying that Bloomberg was trying to avoid scrutiny because what was being done was a violation of campaign laws. The prosecution kept responding that there were no campaign violations. I'd have to see a transcript to see whether one of the prosecutors replied that if there were a campaign violation, Haggerty would have been charged for that also.
The real fascination of the trial was a glimpse into how casually a billionaire can spend money. Trusted associates got over $400K to help manage the election. No formal contracts. If more of us were aware of how much money could be siphoned off during elections economists might consider working election expenditures into an economic stimulous package.
In the end Haggerty was found not guilty of first degree grand larceny and guilty of second-degree grand larceny and second-degree money laundering this morning. Maximum sentence 15 years.
Grand larceny it seems requires the amount involved to be over $1 million. The amount in question seemed to be the amount Haggerty used to buy the house.
On the second day of deliberation, the jury asked for clarification: who was the victim? Huh?
The defense argued that once Haggerty got the money Bloomberg had no say over how the money could be used. I don't know nearly enough about the law to understand how charges are assigned, but promising to do something for money and then not doing it violates something otherwise there are some great career options to those of us who can lie with a straight face.
The devil, of course, was lurking in the details: the victim might have been the Independence Party which should have receive the money for watching the polls or the trust fund from which the money came. The defense was arguing that the prosecution's charges were wrong. Unsaid was that their client was guilty; the prosecutors had erred by selecting the wrong victim. It would only be a matter of time, then, until the prosecution, recognizing the error of its ways, came up with the correct indictment and Haggerty would find himself a guest of the state.
The defense tried to make the source of the funds an issue. Because Bloomberg used personal funds, not campaign funds the defense kept implying that Bloomberg was trying to avoid scrutiny because what was being done was a violation of campaign laws. The prosecution kept responding that there were no campaign violations. I'd have to see a transcript to see whether one of the prosecutors replied that if there were a campaign violation, Haggerty would have been charged for that also.
The real fascination of the trial was a glimpse into how casually a billionaire can spend money. Trusted associates got over $400K to help manage the election. No formal contracts. If more of us were aware of how much money could be siphoned off during elections economists might consider working election expenditures into an economic stimulous package.
In the end Haggerty was found not guilty of first degree grand larceny and guilty of second-degree grand larceny and second-degree money laundering this morning. Maximum sentence 15 years.
Grand larceny it seems requires the amount involved to be over $1 million. The amount in question seemed to be the amount Haggerty used to buy the house.
No comments:
Post a Comment