A high-profile case involving political influence and questionable financial practices reaches its conclusion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Stephen Calk, the former CEO of Federal Savings Bank in Chicago, as reported by Reuters.
Calk was convicted of bribery for approving $16 million in risky loans to Paul Manafort, who served as Donald Trump's 2016 campaign chairman. The banker had sought to overturn his conviction and prison sentence, which included one year and one day behind bars.
Prosecutors alleged that Calk's motivation for approving the loans was to secure a prestigious position within the Trump administration.
Following the loan approval in 2016, Manafort reportedly recommended Calk to Trump's transition team for the role of U.S. Army secretary, the highest civilian position within the military branch.
While Calk, who had served as an Army reservist for 16 years, did not ultimately secure the Secretary position, he was granted an interview with the Trump team in January 2017 for the role of Army undersecretary. However, he was not selected for this position either.
In 2021, a federal jury in Manhattan found Calk guilty of financial institution bribery and conspiracy. At the time, U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss stated that Calk treated his federally insured bank like a personal fund to gain influence and status.
The court handed down a sentence that extended beyond prison time. Calk was also ordered to complete two years of supervised release, perform 800 hours of community service, and pay a substantial fine of $1.25 million.
Calk's legal team mounted a vigorous defense, arguing that his actions should not be considered corrupt under federal anti-bribery laws. They contended that Manafort's assistance in securing a government position did not constitute a "thing of value" with a specific dollar amount.
The appeal process took Calk's case through multiple courts. In November 2023, the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld both his conviction and sentence. Undeterred, Calk's attorneys pressed on to the Supreme Court, claiming that the 2nd Circuit's decision conflicted with rulings from four other federal appellate courts.
The U.S. Justice Department pushed back against Calk's arguments in opposing his appeal to the Supreme Court. They maintained that the term "anything of value" in bribery law can encompass intangible items, not just those with a monetary value.
Additionally, the Justice Department disputed Calk's claim of a split among appeals courts on this issue. They also rejected the notion that corruption requires an intentional breach of legal duty to the bank, arguing that Calk's actions could be considered corrupt even if he believed they were in the bank's best interest.
The Supreme Court's decision to decline Calk's appeal effectively ends his legal battle. The former banker's conviction for approving risky loans to Paul Manafort in exchange for a potential high-ranking government position stands. This case highlights the intersection of financial misconduct and political influence-peddling, serving as a cautionary tale in the realm of banking and politics.
