Greg Craig's Lawyers Bash 'Vague, Cryptic and Confusing' Charges
Defense lawyers for the former Skadden partner and Obama White House counsel contend the indictment "jumbles allegations about written statements together with inferences about oral representations."
April 30, 2019 at 02:27 PM
4 minute read
The defense lawyers for Gregory Craig, a former Obama White House counsel and Big Law partner in Washington, are pushing back against prosecutors and demanding the government provide more details about allegations that he lied about his advocacy for the government of Ukraine.
Craig, a former Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partner in Washington, has pleaded not guilty to charges he misled the Justice Department to avoid registering as a foreign agent in connection with his past work for Ukraine. He is represented by a team from Zuckerman Spaeder. Craig retired from Skadden last year as the criminal investigation was unfolding.
Central to the government's case is Craig's role in the preparation of a report, in 2012, on the Ukrainian government's prosecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister and political rival of the country's president at the time, Viktor Yanukovych.
Tuesday's court filing asks U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia to force the government to provide with greater particularity details about the indictment. The filing marked the first significant glimpse of how Craig plans to challenge prosecutors. Craig's lawyers also said they planned soon to file papers asking Jackson to dismiss the indictment.
“When it comes time to identifying the actual false or misleading statements, the indictment is vague, cryptic, and confusing,” Craig's lawyers, including William Taylor III and William Murphy, said in the new filing.
Craig's lawyers contend he was not required to disclose that work under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, an 80-year-old law requiring the disclosure of lobbying work carried out in the United States for foreign governments and other overseas interests. The law has played an outsized role in prosecutions stemming from the special counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.
“Mr. Craig contends that neither he nor his law firm engaged in any conduct that required FARA registration, and that he did not mislead the FARA Unit in any way,” Craig's lawyers wrote in a court filing Tuesday. “In fact, Mr. Craig and his law firm did not register under FARA because they believed, after careful consideration of the issue, that the firm's work for Ukraine did not require registration.”
Prosecutors said in charging documents that the “purpose of FARA is to prevent covert influence by foreign principals. Proper registration under the statute allows the U.S. government and the American people to evaluate the statements and activities of individuals who are serving as agents of foreign principals.”
The defense team also hammered at the fact the government allegedly does not have recordings or other notes from key meetings involving Craig and lawyers from the Justice Department's FARA unit.
“The indictment was prepared many years after the events in question, and memories have faded. The government has no written record to elucidate the allegations of false oral statements—or perhaps to dismantle them—and depends entirely upon the recollections of participants that are vague, incomplete and unreliable,” Craig's lawyers said in the new court filing. “Despite the self-evident risk of mistake and misremembering, the government pursues criminal charges alleging that Mr. Craig lied to the FARA unit.”
Craig's lawyers said the indictment “jumbles allegations about written statements together with inferences about oral representations. There is no itemization of what statements are alleged to be false as opposed to those alleged to be misleading.”
Craig's indictment came just months after Skadden reached a $4.6 million settlement with the Justice Department resolving claims that the firm failed to register under FARA. As part of the settlement, Skadden registered retroactively as a foreign agent.
Last week, federal prosecutors revealed that they had agreed to not offer Skadden's settlement as evidence at Craig's trial.
Skadden Registers Ukraine Advocacy After Settling DOJ's Lobbying Case
|Mike Scarcella contributed reporting from Washington.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 2Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 3Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 4Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 5Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250