Criminal charges likely from Gulf oil spill, legal experts say

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by duckstandard, Jul 3, 2010.

  1. duckstandard

    duckstandard Guest

    Criminal charges likely from Gulf oil spill, legal experts say

    By Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON — Federal investigators are likely to file criminal charges
    against at least one of the companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico
    spill, raising the prospects of significantly higher penalties than a
    current $75 million cap on civil liability, legal experts say.

    The inquiry by the Homeland Security and Interior Departments into how
    the spill occurred is still in its early stages and authorities have
    not confirmed whether a criminal investigation has been launched.

    But environmental law experts say it's just a matter of time until the
    Justice Department steps in - if it hasn't already - to initiate a
    criminal inquiry and take punitive action.

    "There is no question there'll be an enforcement action," said David
    M. Uhlmann, who headed the Justice Department's environmental crimes
    section for seven years during the Clinton and Bush administrations.
    "And, it's very likely that there will be at least some criminal
    charges brought."

    Such a likelihood has broad legal implications for BP and the two
    other companies involved — not the least of which is the amount of
    money any responsible party could be required to pay. The White House
    is asking Congress to lift the current $75 million cap on liability
    under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, but there's no cap on criminal
    penalties. In fact, prosecutors in such cases can seek twice the cost
    of environmental and economic damages resulting from the spill.

    While Attorney General Eric Holder has confirmed that Justice
    Department lawyers are helping the agencies involved in the oil spill
    inquiry with legal questions, department officials have refused to
    detail what their role entails.

    But Uhlmann and other experts said it's likely prosecutors are already
    poring over evidence from the spill because under the Clean Water and
    Air Acts and other federal laws aimed at protecting migratory birds,
    an accidental oil spill of this magnitude could at least result in
    misdemeanor negligence charges.

    And under the migratory bird regulations, prosecutors have very broad
    discretion.

    "If it happens, then you can charge it," said William Carter, a former
    federal prosecutor of 14 years who headed the environmental crimes
    section for the Los Angeles U.S. attorney's office. "There's no intent
    required."

    He added that he agreed with Uhlmann, saying, "I would be shocked if
    there were no criminal charges filed in this case. There are so many
    things that went wrong out there."

    In testimony on the Hill this week, all three companies involved in
    the spill — BP, Halliburton, and Transocean — denied culpability for
    the spill and have instead blamed each other.

    BP did not respond to requests for comment.

    Halliburton and Transocean declined to answer questions, saying it
    would be "inappropriate" to comment on any possible litigation or
    investigations.

    "At the moment, Transocean is concentrating its efforts on assisting
    BP and federal and state agencies on the clean-up effort," the company
    said in a statement.

    One of the numerous factors in determining whether to file criminal
    charges is the adequacy of civil damages, which would provide an
    additional reason for prosecutors to pursue a criminal case in
    connection with the Gulf spill, experts said.

    Prosecutors also look at the history of violations, which could also
    persuade them to file charges. BP, for example, has already agreed to
    pay millions in criminal penalties for several major incidents,
    including for a fatal explosion at a Texas refinery in March 2005.

    BP and several of its subsidiaries agreed to pay a total of $373
    million in fines for the Texas explosion, leaks of crude oil from
    pipelines in Alaska, and for fraud for conspiring to corner the market
    and manipulate the price of propane carried through Texas pipelines.

    While the government will probably only bring criminal charges if
    there is some sort of negligence — "that's not a very high bar,"
    Uhlmann said.

    In 1999, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
    misdemeanor conviction under the Clean Water Act of a supervisor at a
    rock quarry project that accidentally ruptured an oil pipeline,
    causing a spill.

    For a felony, prosecutors have to demonstrate companies "knowingly"
    violated the regulations.

    Tracy Hester, the director of the Environment, Energy and Natural
    Resources Center at the University of Houston, said prosecutors would
    be looking for "any possible concealment of the risks, a failure to
    respond to any known risks, and a failure to report a dangerous
    situation."

    "Knowing is a slippery term," Hester said. "But knowing doesn't
    necessarily mean that you knew it was a violation of the law. You just
    have to be aware that what you were doing fell into what is
    regulated."

    But Oliver Houck, a professor with Tulane University who specializes
    in environmental law, predicted that prosecutors are not going to want
    to pursue minor charges for such a catastrophic spill.

    Meanwhile, the companies themselves have already started pointing
    fingers.

    In testimony this week, BP pointed to questions about the blowout
    preventer — and made it clear that Transocean owned it.

    Transocean, however, denied the blowout preventer caused the accident
    and hinted that the cementing and casing did not properly control the
    pressure.

    Halliburton, the cementing sub-contractor, pointed to BP as the well
    owner.

    "This has been a series of 'Oh my god' revelations, 'They did what?''
    Houck said. "But those revelations are the grits and grease of
    standard civil claims."

    "To get into criminal land, you would have to prove that they knew
    that the short cuts they were taking brought a high probability of
    serious risk," he said. "I don't think the government has that yet.
    That's what grand juries are for."

    Houck added that some of the strongest environmental criminal cases
    have come out of civil cases, which means that prosecutors may not
    determine whether any of the companies have criminal liability for
    months, if not years.

    "The beauty part of civil trials is the competing companies," he said.
    "As a prosecutor this is the most delightful scenario: All the
    defendants proving each others' guilt."
    duckstandard, Jul 3, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "duckstandard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    Criminal charges likely from Gulf oil spill, legal experts say

    By Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON — Federal investigators are likely to file criminal charges
    against at least one of the companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico
    spill, raising the prospects of significantly higher penalties than a
    current $75 million cap on civil liability, legal experts say.

    The inquiry by the Homeland Security and Interior Departments into how
    the spill occurred is still in its early stages and authorities have
    not confirmed whether a criminal investigation has been launched.

    But environmental law experts say it's just a matter of time until the
    Justice Department steps in - if it hasn't already - to initiate a
    criminal inquiry and take punitive action.

    "There is no question there'll be an enforcement action," said David
    M. Uhlmann, who headed the Justice Department's environmental crimes
    section for seven years during the Clinton and Bush administrations.
    "And, it's very likely that there will be at least some criminal
    charges brought."

    Such a likelihood has broad legal implications for BP and the two
    other companies involved — not the least of which is the amount of
    money any responsible party could be required to pay. The White House
    is asking Congress to lift the current $75 million cap on liability
    under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, but there's no cap on criminal
    penalties. In fact, prosecutors in such cases can seek twice the cost
    of environmental and economic damages resulting from the spill.

    While Attorney General Eric Holder has confirmed that Justice
    Department lawyers are helping the agencies involved in the oil spill
    inquiry with legal questions, department officials have refused to
    detail what their role entails.

    But Uhlmann and other experts said it's likely prosecutors are already
    poring over evidence from the spill because under the Clean Water and
    Air Acts and other federal laws aimed at protecting migratory birds,
    an accidental oil spill of this magnitude could at least result in
    misdemeanor negligence charges.

    And under the migratory bird regulations, prosecutors have very broad
    discretion.

    "If it happens, then you can charge it," said William Carter, a former
    federal prosecutor of 14 years who headed the environmental crimes
    section for the Los Angeles U.S. attorney's office. "There's no intent
    required."

    He added that he agreed with Uhlmann, saying, "I would be shocked if
    there were no criminal charges filed in this case. There are so many
    things that went wrong out there."

    In testimony on the Hill this week, all three companies involved in
    the spill — BP, Halliburton, and Transocean — denied culpability for
    the spill and have instead blamed each other.

    BP did not respond to requests for comment.

    Halliburton and Transocean declined to answer questions, saying it
    would be "inappropriate" to comment on any possible litigation or
    investigations.

    "At the moment, Transocean is concentrating its efforts on assisting
    BP and federal and state agencies on the clean-up effort," the company
    said in a statement.

    One of the numerous factors in determining whether to file criminal
    charges is the adequacy of civil damages, which would provide an
    additional reason for prosecutors to pursue a criminal case in
    connection with the Gulf spill, experts said.

    Prosecutors also look at the history of violations, which could also
    persuade them to file charges. BP, for example, has already agreed to
    pay millions in criminal penalties for several major incidents,
    including for a fatal explosion at a Texas refinery in March 2005.

    BP and several of its subsidiaries agreed to pay a total of $373
    million in fines for the Texas explosion, leaks of crude oil from
    pipelines in Alaska, and for fraud for conspiring to corner the market
    and manipulate the price of propane carried through Texas pipelines.

    While the government will probably only bring criminal charges if
    there is some sort of negligence — "that's not a very high bar,"
    Uhlmann said.

    In 1999, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
    misdemeanor conviction under the Clean Water Act of a supervisor at a
    rock quarry project that accidentally ruptured an oil pipeline,
    causing a spill.

    For a felony, prosecutors have to demonstrate companies "knowingly"
    violated the regulations.

    Tracy Hester, the director of the Environment, Energy and Natural
    Resources Center at the University of Houston, said prosecutors would
    be looking for "any possible concealment of the risks, a failure to
    respond to any known risks, and a failure to report a dangerous
    situation."

    "Knowing is a slippery term," Hester said. "But knowing doesn't
    necessarily mean that you knew it was a violation of the law. You just
    have to be aware that what you were doing fell into what is
    regulated."

    But Oliver Houck, a professor with Tulane University who specializes
    in environmental law, predicted that prosecutors are not going to want
    to pursue minor charges for such a catastrophic spill.

    Meanwhile, the companies themselves have already started pointing
    fingers.

    In testimony this week, BP pointed to questions about the blowout
    preventer — and made it clear that Transocean owned it.

    Transocean, however, denied the blowout preventer caused the accident
    and hinted that the cementing and casing did not properly control the
    pressure.

    Halliburton, the cementing sub-contractor, pointed to BP as the well
    owner.

    "This has been a series of 'Oh my god' revelations, 'They did what?''
    Houck said. "But those revelations are the grits and grease of
    standard civil claims."

    "To get into criminal land, you would have to prove that they knew
    that the short cuts they were taking brought a high probability of
    serious risk," he said. "I don't think the government has that yet.
    That's what grand juries are for."

    Houck added that some of the strongest environmental criminal cases
    have come out of civil cases, which means that prosecutors may not
    determine whether any of the companies have criminal liability for
    months, if not years.

    "The beauty part of civil trials is the competing companies," he said.
    "As a prosecutor this is the most delightful scenario: All the
    defendants proving each others' guilt."

    You must remember that no one is pointing a finger at the best inspectors
    that money could buy. The whole thing is crazy. One of the first things
    that President Obama did was to send a troop of lawyers down to the spill
    rather than people who might have helped solve the problem. We have the
    EPA: a government bureau that makes the laws, interprets the laws, enforces
    the laws, and answers to no one. Send them there is like asking a surgeon
    if you need an operation. Everyone is looking for someone to blame. Why
    aren't they looking at President Obama's response. It was criminal. He
    should be prosecuted. Could it be that the states involved are Red States?
    When he acts, what does he do? He puts a moritorium on off-shore drilling.
    Then to add insult to injury he tries to set money aside to pay the people
    who have been laid off by this stupid action. I personally believe he is
    not the least upset about the conditions. It gives him a lever to pursue
    'cap & trade'. He is trying to increase spending to increase the deficit.
    Then he will raise taxes . . . or the Republicans will have to . . . to
    reduce the deficit. Eventually it will destroy the private sector by
    taxation. Finally, we will have the marxist utopia that is being enjoyed by
    the Europeans . . . err . . . Greece.
    TheStoneCrusher, Jul 4, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. duckstandard

    Orion Guest

    ok I got it
    "duckstandard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    Criminal charges likely from Gulf oil spill, legal experts say

    By Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers

    WASHINGTON — Federal investigators are likely to file criminal charges
    against at least one of the companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico
    spill, raising the prospects of significantly higher penalties than a
    current $75 million cap on civil liability, legal experts say.

    The inquiry by the Homeland Security and Interior Departments into how
    the spill occurred is still in its early stages and authorities have
    not confirmed whether a criminal investigation has been launched.

    But environmental law experts say it's just a matter of time until the
    Justice Department steps in - if it hasn't already - to initiate a
    criminal inquiry and take punitive action.

    "There is no question there'll be an enforcement action," said David
    M. Uhlmann, who headed the Justice Department's environmental crimes
    section for seven years during the Clinton and Bush administrations.
    "And, it's very likely that there will be at least some criminal
    charges brought."

    Such a likelihood has broad legal implications for BP and the two
    other companies involved — not the least of which is the amount of
    money any responsible party could be required to pay. The White House
    is asking Congress to lift the current $75 million cap on liability
    under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, but there's no cap on criminal
    penalties. In fact, prosecutors in such cases can seek twice the cost
    of environmental and economic damages resulting from the spill.

    While Attorney General Eric Holder has confirmed that Justice
    Department lawyers are helping the agencies involved in the oil spill
    inquiry with legal questions, department officials have refused to
    detail what their role entails.

    But Uhlmann and other experts said it's likely prosecutors are already
    poring over evidence from the spill because under the Clean Water and
    Air Acts and other federal laws aimed at protecting migratory birds,
    an accidental oil spill of this magnitude could at least result in
    misdemeanor negligence charges.

    And under the migratory bird regulations, prosecutors have very broad
    discretion.

    "If it happens, then you can charge it," said William Carter, a former
    federal prosecutor of 14 years who headed the environmental crimes
    section for the Los Angeles U.S. attorney's office. "There's no intent
    required."

    He added that he agreed with Uhlmann, saying, "I would be shocked if
    there were no criminal charges filed in this case. There are so many
    things that went wrong out there."

    In testimony on the Hill this week, all three companies involved in
    the spill — BP, Halliburton, and Transocean — denied culpability for
    the spill and have instead blamed each other.

    BP did not respond to requests for comment.

    Halliburton and Transocean declined to answer questions, saying it
    would be "inappropriate" to comment on any possible litigation or
    investigations.

    "At the moment, Transocean is concentrating its efforts on assisting
    BP and federal and state agencies on the clean-up effort," the company
    said in a statement.

    One of the numerous factors in determining whether to file criminal
    charges is the adequacy of civil damages, which would provide an
    additional reason for prosecutors to pursue a criminal case in
    connection with the Gulf spill, experts said.

    Prosecutors also look at the history of violations, which could also
    persuade them to file charges. BP, for example, has already agreed to
    pay millions in criminal penalties for several major incidents,
    including for a fatal explosion at a Texas refinery in March 2005.

    BP and several of its subsidiaries agreed to pay a total of $373
    million in fines for the Texas explosion, leaks of crude oil from
    pipelines in Alaska, and for fraud for conspiring to corner the market
    and manipulate the price of propane carried through Texas pipelines.

    While the government will probably only bring criminal charges if
    there is some sort of negligence — "that's not a very high bar,"
    Uhlmann said.

    In 1999, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
    misdemeanor conviction under the Clean Water Act of a supervisor at a
    rock quarry project that accidentally ruptured an oil pipeline,
    causing a spill.

    For a felony, prosecutors have to demonstrate companies "knowingly"
    violated the regulations.

    Tracy Hester, the director of the Environment, Energy and Natural
    Resources Center at the University of Houston, said prosecutors would
    be looking for "any possible concealment of the risks, a failure to
    respond to any known risks, and a failure to report a dangerous
    situation."

    "Knowing is a slippery term," Hester said. "But knowing doesn't
    necessarily mean that you knew it was a violation of the law. You just
    have to be aware that what you were doing fell into what is
    regulated."

    But Oliver Houck, a professor with Tulane University who specializes
    in environmental law, predicted that prosecutors are not going to want
    to pursue minor charges for such a catastrophic spill.

    Meanwhile, the companies themselves have already started pointing
    fingers.

    In testimony this week, BP pointed to questions about the blowout
    preventer — and made it clear that Transocean owned it.

    Transocean, however, denied the blowout preventer caused the accident
    and hinted that the cementing and casing did not properly control the
    pressure.

    Halliburton, the cementing sub-contractor, pointed to BP as the well
    owner.

    "This has been a series of 'Oh my god' revelations, 'They did what?''
    Houck said. "But those revelations are the grits and grease of
    standard civil claims."

    "To get into criminal land, you would have to prove that they knew
    that the short cuts they were taking brought a high probability of
    serious risk," he said. "I don't think the government has that yet.
    That's what grand juries are for."

    Houck added that some of the strongest environmental criminal cases
    have come out of civil cases, which means that prosecutors may not
    determine whether any of the companies have criminal liability for
    months, if not years.

    "The beauty part of civil trials is the competing companies," he said.
    "As a prosecutor this is the most delightful scenario: All the
    defendants proving each others' guilt."
    Orion, Jul 4, 2010
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. FrankS
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    288
  2. OldGringo38

    Re: Oil Spill takes toll on headwires

    OldGringo38, Jul 1, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    370
    OldGringo38
    Jul 1, 2010
  3. chuckcar

    Re: Oil Spill takes toll on headwires

    chuckcar, Jul 2, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    356
    Aardvark
    Jul 4, 2010
  4. duckstandard

    BP wants Houston judge with oil ties to hear spill cases

    duckstandard, Jul 3, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    469
    Aardvark
    Jul 4, 2010
  5. OldGringo38

    Multi-Camera Oil Spill

    OldGringo38, Jul 15, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    420
    OldGringo38
    Jul 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page