Conrad Black's parting words to reporters as he left a Chicago courthouse on Wednesday were "have a very nice summer." Unfortunately for the "fraudster", as a Globe and Mail sub-headline described him, he won't be able to enjoy this country's summery delights.
Judge Amy St. Eve won't let him return to Canada to await his Nov. 30 sentencing date. Ah well: Summerlicious at Scaramouche is over now, so what would be the point?
Oh, and court heard that a controversial PI thinks Conrad may have stashed US$60 million offshore -- something the defence hotly disputes.
From The Globe and Mail story:
Toronto-based Hollinger used to be a key part of Lord Black's business empire. He left the company in 2004 amid allegations of fraud and his control over it has been restricted by the courts. Hollinger's new managers have launched several lawsuits against him and have obtained a court-ordered freeze on his worldwide assets.
"I have been informed by several reliable, independent from each other sources that Conrad Black has been moving significant amount of monies around the world from 2005 to the present. In particular, much of this money has either gone through or is currently domiciled in Gibraltar," Mr. (Juval) Aviv (of New York-based Interfor) alleged in the affidavit.
"The estimates I have received regarding the amount of this money vary widely, but several sources have all told me the same amount, namely approximately Euro 40 million in Gibraltar."
Mr. Aviv described himself in the affidavit as a former Israeli Secret Service agent and retired Israeli army major who has consulted on terrorism issues with the U.S. Congress.
Lord Black rejected the allegations in a court filing and his lawyer, Edward Greenspan, called Mr. Aviv a liar. ...
He went through a long history of Mr. Aviv's work, going back to his alleged role with the Israeli intelligence service in hunting down Palestinian extremists who killed Israeli athletes during the Olympic Games in 1972.
Mr. Greenspan told Judge St. Eve that those events were chronicled in a book called Vengeance by George Jonas, who was once married to Lord Black's wife, Barbara Amiel. He said much of Mr. Aviv's previous work, including the information in Vengeance, involved outlandish claims that have since been widely discredited.
"He is, I submit, a double-dealing con artist," Mr. Greenspan said. "Nobody can rely on [this affidavit] for anything."
In a strange way, I would think less of someone in Black's position if they didn't try to stash money offshore once it became clear a shitstorm of criminal and civil actions were about to hit them. Despite all the sturm und drang about "Conrad will win!," Black must have planned ahead for the unpleasant possiblity that he would not.
Maybe not. What do I know? It's not like Mr. Aviv hasn't shown himself to be capable of fantastical tales.
One thing the news coverage didn't talk about is what impact this ruling might have on Black's efforts to regain Canadian residency. In pre-hearing chatter, CTV legal analyst Steven Skurka opined that returning to Canada ASAP was important to Black because he had to live here for a year in order to get permanent residency status -- and a Canadian passport.
If he could get his hands on that coveted document, Skurka said that might give Black a chance at serving his time in Canada.
I didn't really see this angle covered off in the Toronto Star or Globe, so I don't know what impact the ruling will have on Black's attempts to return to the land of his birth -- and, in happier times -- his citizenship.
... The judge (Amy St. Eve) said last night she was not convinced that Black would return willingly. Black had pledged that he would waive his right to fight extradition but the prosecution said this was not legally enforceable - a view backed by Canada's justice department.
In a letter to the court, Thomas Beveridge, a senior Canadian government official, wrote that whether an individual could be held to this was "primarily an issue between that person and the foreign court". He added: "If the person subsequently wishes to revoke their anticipatory waiver, the lack of express statutory authority to enforce these prior undertakings gives rise to the possibility of extensive litigation in our courts."