Government may be trying to force FedEx into settlement, experts say
By adding money laundering to the charges against FedEx Corp., federal prosecutors are trying to force the package-shipping company to settle its drug- trafficking case, attorneys and analysts said.
“This looks like it's a matter of ratcheting up the pressure,” said Larry Cote, an attorney at Quarles & Brady LLP in Washington and former associate counsel with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. “It's like charging someone with murder and then adding an underlying weapons charge.”
Allegations of conspiring to launder money were added on Aug. 15 to July conspiracy and drug-trafficking charges alleging that FedEx delivered drugs for online pharmacies, supplying pills to customers who were never examined by doctors, while knowing the actions violated federal and state drug laws. FedEx says it's innocent of all counts and will fight the case in court.
The new charges, along with the amount of money and time involved to rebut the accusations and on public relations efforts, might make a settlement without an admission of guilt the best course, said Kevin Sterling, a BB&T Capital Markets analyst in Richmond, Va.
“They're trying to throw the book at FedEx,” Sterling said in an interview. “The government is pushing it and, unfortunately, probably the best course of action, the quietest course, is to settle. They're trying to make life as miserable as possible for FedEx.”
FedEx slipped less than 1 percent to $150 at the close in New York. The shares have risen 4.3 percent this year, compared with a 7.2 percent gain for the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.
Lillian ArauzHaase, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco, didn't immediately return a voicemail message seeking comment on the new charges.
FedEx “cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if any,” from a conviction, the company said in a July 17 regulatory filing. “However, it is reasonably possible that it could be material.”
FedEx Chief Executive Officer and founder Fred Smith “can keep fighting it, but there's also a cost to that,” Sterling said.
The added money-laundering charges “can turn up the heat a bit on the company,” said Tim Crudo, head of the white collar defense and government enforcement practice at Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP and former assistant U.S. Attorney in San Francisco. Anything linking FedEx to the illegal drug distribution charges “gives a jury another hook” on which to convict, he said.
As part of a crackdown on prescription drug abuse, United Parcel Service Inc. agreed last year to forfeit $40 million in payments from illicit online pharmacies under a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department. Walgreen Co. and CVS Caremark Corp. have paid a total of more than $150 million in civil fines over claims they sold medications knowing they weren't for legitimate medical use.
FedEx on Tuesday reiterated its innocence on all charges in an emailed statement. The Memphis-based company has said “settlement is not an option” in the case.
“We will continue to defend against this attack on the integrity of FedEx,” Patrick Fitzgerald, FedEx senior vice president for marketing and communications, said in the statement. The company has said privacy rights of customers who ship 10 million packages a day are essential for its business.
FedEx and its co-conspirators could face a fine of twice the gains from the illegal conduct, alleged to be at least $820 million. According to the Aug. 15 charges filed in federal court in San Francisco, FedEx, along with others, ran the illicit pharmacies “knowingly and intentionally” and schemed to launder more than $630,000 in shipping payments that were derived from drug sales.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Stocks on upswing
- IBM to pay $1.5B to shed chip division
- Streaming won’t mean the end of cable
- Natrona Bottling Co. keeps soda pop operation small, putting effort into craft, taste
- Fannie Mae might take 3% down
- PPG Industries to buy Westmoreland Supply paint store chain
- Large-scale batteries are integral in shift to renewable energy
- Student loan debt presents paradox
- ‘Foodies’ get fill in Western Pa. as groceries hire chefs to offer tips
- Open enrollment puts varied impact of health care law back in focus
- Mortgage in reach despite few dings