Conrad Black fraud conviction is upheld
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Conrad Black, the former proprietor of The Daily Telegraph, has lost his appeal against convictions for fraud and obstructing the course of justice. The disgraced peer is serving six-and-a-half years after he was convicted 12 months ago of defrauding investors in his media empire, Hollinger International.
The evidence showed that Black engaged in "a conventional fraud", an appeals court in Chicago ruled yesterday. Black siphoned off $6.1m (£3m) by inserting bogus clauses into deals to sell Hollinger's regional newspapers.
Claims by Black that the clauses were legitimate were "ridiculous" and "preposterous", the judges ruled. The also decided there was evidence to support the obstruction of justice verdict against the Canadian-born peer. The court upheld the fraud convictions of three of Black's associates, Peter Atkinson, Jack Boultbee and Mark Kipnis. David Radler, Black's business partner, pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud and testified for the prosecution.
Black's ownership of the Telegraph won him the keys to the British establishment and a seat in the Lords, but prosecutors argued that his lavish lifestyle was funded by his fraudulent earnings.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments