This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Yesterday, Arkago's founder Bill Huang was sentenced to eighteen years in prison for securities fraud and market manipulation. But today, in a really unusual twist, the judge is considering reducing that sentence. A jury convicted Wog in July on ten charges for orchestrating a scheme to mislead Banks into providing Archagos with billions of dollars in trading capacity, which ultimately led to the collapse of his thirty six billion dollar family office and cost Wall Street Banks more than nine
billion dollars. Yesterday, Judge Alvin Hellerstein didn't seem particularly open to the arguments of the defense, even musing at one point that Wang was a god fearing man who cheats fellow men. He sentenced him to close to the twenty one years the government had asked for, But it seems things can change significantly overnight. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter CHRYSTL. Mesh, who's been in the courtroom for these hearings and the trial, and we were talking yesterday about
how unusual the sentencing hearing was. Day one of the sentencing hearing. And now it's getting even more unusual. The judge did impose sentence yesterday of eighteen years.
What happened today, Yeah, so unusual, bizarre, however you want to put it is probably a good descriptor. So the judge had extended the sentencing hearing for a day to address some other issues such as restitution and forfeiture and bail pending appeal. And you know, that's very unusual in itself.
Christmast sentencings take just a couple of hours. But then this morning when they came in, Barry Burke, the lawyer for mister Vong, got up and said he had kind of tossed and turned all night and was, you know, just really wondering if they should have done more. At that point, he proposed changing the sentence, essentially not giving him less than eighteen years in custody, but having the first eleven and a half years be in prison in the second six point five years be in home confinement.
And the reason he did that is because there's Bureau Prison Justice Department rules that when you have more than eleven and a half years incarceration, you can't be in a minimum security prison, which he said, you know, would prevent his fanley from visiting. He's sixty years old, he has heart issues that may require open heart surgery. He was saying, you know, this is the kind of thing that happened during COVID, and it sounds like the judge
is considering that. He said he thinks he's allowed to do it. He's not saying he will. The government argued against it, saying they think that would kind of take the bomps out of the sentence that you know, they wanted to send a message to others who would commit similar crimes when they kind of noted that a lot of his crimes were during COVID. A lot of it was just done sitting around a table and known apartment.
So that's what they're kind of known, a hey, you know, he's going to be on home confinement, like that's not exactly going to stop him from, you know, committing further crimes. So the judge did not decide today, but it's going to take post briefing from the two sides by December fifth, and then we'll hold a hearing on December eighteenth, presumably to direst the forfeiture in a possible find but that could also be hearing on whether the sentence is changed at all.
I mean, I imagine that Billhong didn't sleep well last night either. So besides tossing and turning, did the defense attorney have any new arguments for a lower sentence, I mean different from the ones that they already articulated yesterday.
Not really. I mean, they rested on their arguments, but they were emphasizing that they don't want to change the sentence. They just think that, you know, being in prison for that much, it's also a much more restrictive facility if he would be in anything above minimum security, so that it know, it would be difficult for his family to visit, be difficult for him to get medical care, that sort of thing. So they didn't really expand on their arguments
from yesterday. It was more about his health, the fact that he wouldn't be able to see his family, that sort of thing. The really interesting part to me is that, you know the fact that the judge extended the hearing for a second day essentially gave the defense a window to make this argument. Not saying they wouldn't have made this argument at the end of the day yesterday, but you know, given this judge's age, and you know, he was clearly, you know, ready to move on at the
end of the day, at least from day. You know, they came back fresh this morning, and it gave these defenses an opportunity to make this argument a little more clearly, and when the judge, you know, was fully engaged in listening to what they had to say.
He is ninety years old. It's amazing that he's still presiding over trials like this, complicated trials like this.
So yeah, sure, the judge asked.
Wong's attorneys to submit information on his health status to him privately, But what is he looking for in the papers he's asking both sides to.
Submit, Especially, he just wants more arguments on this, and I think he's really trying to flesh out more of the government's arguments against this, and he's legally allowed to do it. I think that's what he really wants to know. He wants case law and to know if the law allows him to reduce a sentence. He's already given. Another kind of procedural wrinkle it to this is that you know, at the end of every sentencing hearing, when someone gets sentenced,
the judge usually signals what he's going to give. He asked the parties, as there are reason I shouldn't impose this sentence, you know, usually they say no, and then he officially imposed sentence. He asked the dependence to stand up, and he says, you're sentenced to this, you know, the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for X number of years.
He didn't do that yesterday. Barry Burke noted that, you know, at the beginning of his kind of argument today, and that might have been, you know, some sort of signal to him that he could have made this argument. So the sentence has actually not been officially imposed at this time.
I'm sensing a legal loophole ahead here, and that all goes to what we were talking about yesterday, which is how bizarre this sentencing was. Of the structure of the sentencing.
I'll just add this. Usually it folly for a defense attorney to attempt to get up to a federal judge and essentially re argue their case after the judges imposed sent or reargue their their sentencing recommendation. And you know, with another judge, I don't know if the defense attorney would have done this because they already kind of irked him with their request for no jail time. And you know, if it had been another judge, they may have been
hesitant to do that. But he's made it clear throughout the trial that you know that he's willing to change his mind.
Chris tell us more about his style, where he interrupts the parties a lot, you know, interjects himself into the proceedings more than most federal judges do.
Right, judges will spitball all the time during trials, and you know, ask questions of counsel, but they generally prefer to allow the proceedings to happen without their interference. And this judge was not doing that. He was constantly engaging with the lawyers, who was constantly telling them to move on or ask a different question times, just asking their questions for them. So any attempt to like make another
argument to most judges is met with scorn. And you know it's because they make it clear what they're thinking is ahead of any kind of decision. Even if it's they don't tell you what the decision is going to be, they hint at it. And Hellerstein regularly would reconsider things in the middle of the case, and you know, if he heard a better argument from either side, he would he would change his mind. And you just don't always
see that with federal judges. They tend to believe in their convictions, and they stand on their rulings and they don't really reconsider them unless they're significant new evidence.
Right, They don't want to hear the same arguments over and over again. So was there any argument or any requests to revoke his bail.
No, the government did not oppose having him self surrender, meaning you know, he would just report to prison whenever the judge told him to. But they did oppose the bail pending appeal, saying that you know, and this is a significant term in prison and he should serve it soon.
Since the judge granted him bail pending appeal, Wong will be out through the entire appellate process, which could take years.
Yes, unless, of course, the judge decides to reconsider it.
Was anything else decided today or discussed?
Not really so forfeitures. Forfeiture is not. However, I will say that there were some interesting exchanges about his assets and the judge noting that really wondering out loud, you know, whether his assets need to be secured in case of, you know, a final judgment against him, that would be combined with a monetary penalty or restitution or forfeiture, whatever have you, because he says he only had fifty five million dollars and some of his assets are jointly owned.
So the judge, you know, wondered whether personal loans should be called back, real estate should be liquidated, whether his residence should be a quote unquote more modest one, whether artworks should be liquidated, you know. But he also noted that any kind of four picture you know, would have to come after restitution, noting that the most important thing is that the victims get paid back first.
So are those issues going to be discussed at the next hearing in December.
A restitution is deferred, it doesn't sound like that's going to be immediately addressed. For a fiture could be. It's hard to say. It was not entirely clear exactly what they will be putting in those filings, but I think they will probably cover the gamut.
Finally, Chris, I can't think of another case where a judge reconsidered a sentence so quickly after imposing it. Of course, as you mentioned, he didn't really officially impose the sentence. I mean, defendants often make motions for reconsideration of sentences afterwards, but that's not what's going on here.
Yeah, no, that's very true. And you know, that's a good point given that, like I said, many of these things are done in a matter of hours. They're not done over two day, and judges are pretty quick to adjourn a sentencing hearing if they feel they need more briefing or there are issues they need to resolve before they impose sentence. They want that to be the final say kind of. It just never really happens like this.
I have seen a case where the judge this was in Connecticut in a white collar case involving a bond trader, where the judge did not officially impose sentence that day and postponed the hearing for more briefing on I don't remember when it was restitution, but it was another issue, and then he appoass sence the next time. But that was a probationary case, so it's not really the same kind of scenario.
I'm sure both the prosecution and the defense are doing a lot of research to find a similar case. Thanks so much, Chris. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Crystal Mesh coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Well, President Joe Biden use his pardon powers in the last two months of his administration? Could he give his son Hunter Biden a pardon? And what about the members of his administration? On Trump's revengelist, I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed.
It's probably the most famous pardon in US history. On September eighth of nineteen ninety four, President Gerald Ford addressed the nation from the Oval Office to announce his decision to grant a pardon to former President Richard Nixon, and Ford signed the pardon papers on camera.
Now, therefore, I'm Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article two, Section two of the Constitution, have granted and by these presidents do grant a full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon. For all offenses against the United States which he Richard Nixon has committed or may have committed.
That pardon was extremely controversial and may have cost Ford a second term. Some fifty years later, people are still asking whether Ford made the right decision. But presidents since George Washington have granted pardons, often in the final days of their presidency. Through almost four years of his presidency, Joe Biden has only granted pardons in twenty five cases and commuted the sentences of one hundred and thirty two others. Biden has less than sixty days left to use the
pardon power, power he has sole control over. Joining me is Harold Krant, a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law who's written extensively about the presidential pardon power. How this is an extraordinary power that the president has within his sole control. Tell us about the pardon power.
The president under Article too has the power to exercise the traditional partner authority. Within the understanding of the partner authority is that the president can get out of jail free card to anybody who's been previously convicted, or he can preemptively pardon individual by saying that the individual should not even undergo a trial, and that he will be
forgiven for that questionable conduct that the individual engaged. In addition to the pardon power, within that is also the ability to exercise cleendency to reduce the wishment of someone or to infect to restore their right to civil activities such as voting, and so that is all encompassed within the pardon power. And presidents have exercised pardons from George Washington on and indeed President Biden has exercises authority much less ambitiously than his predecessors have.
Has the pardon power ever been challenged in court?
There's been a number of challenges based upon conditional pardons, based upon questions of whether parton authority violates separation of powers in terms of underlining what either judges or what legislatures have done. But by and large the courts have
said it's a progres that we can't touch. It's up to the president, and the president is to use it wisely or unwisely, to pardon friends, campaign donors, but also in cases of injustice, both in historical injustices as well as more recent justic and presidents have used it for all those reasons. President Obama used it widely to help people with long senses for drug offenses and had commuted their sentences in some cases and give full pardons in others.
President Trump exercised it for campaign core readers, but also in other cases as well, and so far President Biden mostly is exercise it in two contexts, one for marijuana use on public lands and the second four to clean the records for those who previously were convicted of a sexual offense for consensual sex in the armed forces. Those are the two sets of individuals, but there have been amnesties in the Civil War afterwards that were granted through
the Partner Authority, antesties for Vietnam War drafters. So presidents have utilized the Partner Authority in a great many different ways. And it's really up to President Biden now as he sort of most of these last two months of his term, to decide how to wield that authority.
The first name that comes up when people talk about who President Biden will pardon is his son, Hunter Biden. He's currently awaiting sentencing on a felony gun charge where he faces a maximum sentence of twenty five years, and there are also tax related charges. President Biden has said he would not pardon his son, but could he commute any sentence, And he has said that.
He actually could commute the sentence, and so Hunter Biden would still have the fact of a conviction. He might be script of some of his civil rights, such as voting or holding particular offices depending upon the jurisdiction, but he would not have to serve time. And so that is probably one head of bet that would be the attack that President Biden would take with respect to his son. A tough call for sure.
Of course, politicians have been known to change their mind. I guess he could just say I am going to pardon my son because he won't be getting a fair shake with the incoming administration.
And of course President Clinton pardoned his half brother with two days remaining on his term as as well, So there is president for commuting the sentence of pardoning your own family members.
You know, you mentioned preemptive pardons, and Trump has threatened to prosecute people he feels have wronged him, and a lot of those people are in the Justice Department or prosecutors. Also, you have Alexander Majorcis who Republicans, a group of Republicans have tried to impeache already. What about preemptive pardons.
So again, another tough choice the president has to make in the next coming months is whether to protect those whom President Trump has accused of illegal conduct, and those include many in his administration, Jack Smith, the Special Counsel Merrik Island, the Attorney general, or the Homeland Secretary maw York.
As you suggested, and it's not beyond imagination at all that President Pump to somebody would try to indict members of Biden's administration for illegal conduct, and then they would have the cost and the inminy of standing trial, even if they think they're incredibly innocent. So President Biden could protect them with the wave of a hand by issuing preemptive pardons. But that has a cost too, because then
it looks as if there's something to pardon. It looks as if there's some kind of illegal activity that needs to be swept under the rug. So it's again another tough choice is do you protect people from the costs of being in the public eye with an indictment against you, But in doing so, you then open up some kind of aura that there might have been illegal condent going on in the administration. So that's a tough path for President Biden to go down, and he has to make that call.
How does it work. Suppose he says I'm going to pardon you know, the Attorney General and the top staff at Justice. Does the Attorney General get to say, no, I don't want that pardon because it would imply that I did something wrong.
Right, So you can reject a pardon, and there have been individuals in the past who have rejected pardons, usually in different contexts. Generally, it's more likely that one would reject a conditional pardon because one doesn't like the conditions that the president would place on it. But you can also just reject a straight out pardon. So Amyeric Ireland could say no thanks, And again it's just because of
the fact that you do. The president, by the way, does have to identify the conduct or the transactional moments for which the partner is being issued. So I can't just say everybody in my administration is pardoned. You'd have to say for conduct a rising out of X, or for this incident.
Why will you explain what a conditional pardon looks like.
So a conditional partner is when the president would say, I will give you a pardon if you agree to leave the country, or I'll give you a pardon if you agree not to associate with no felons, or I'll give you a pardon on the condition that you take drug tests every two weeks for the next two years to make sure you don't go back into substance abuse.
And presidents have issued these conditional pardons for generations. It's unlikely that in the preemptive pardon case that President Biden would attach to such condition, but they have been very
controversial in the past. I mean, one example, President Quinton issued a conditional pardon to members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group the FALN, but when the conditions were that they don't see each other again, they don't talk about revolutionary activities in Puerto Rico, and if you've reached the condition, you risk having to go back into jail.
Behind the scenes. If he was going to issue a pardon to someone in a top person in his administration, I assume that they would learn about it before or absolutely.
I mean, there is a process and a US Pardon attorney, and there's now eight thousand petitions for pardons that are pending before the pardon attorney, and then those are vetted in a certain structured way. But with respect to these high profile issues that we're talking about, the president would have a discussion with them first, because again, you wouldn't want this public relations disaster of extending a pardon only
for the individual to reject it, you know. And again, if you want to just sort of think about scenarios, what kind of message would it make if President Biden sought to issue a pardon to President Trump? You know, on the one hand, it would be seen as, you know, can we pull together as a country. On the other hand, it could be seen just as more political gainsmanship.
Is there actually talk that Biden might issue a pardon to Trump.
I'm sure people around the president have thought about it, analyze it from a political perspective. It wouldn't get rid of the Georgia the New York cases, but it certainly would get rid of the DC and Florida cases. Those are going to be in hold anyway for four years, and so maybe it's worth the kind of statesmanship sort of chip to offer the pardon because you're not really giving much help. But I think a lot of people would feel hurt by that. As well on the Democratic side.
So again, there's just a ton of tough calls that the president should be making, should be analyzing right now.
Yeah, I mean, don't we assume that when Trump comes in, whoever his attorney general is, will just dismiss those cases.
Absolutely. So again, there's very little to lose by offering a pardon now, because the Republicans will just dismiss the federal cases against President Trump.
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, a group of House Democrats are asking President Biden to grant clemency to potentially thousands of InCor serrated people, including inmates on federal death row. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
Criminals who murder our police should get the death penalty.
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump made it clear that as president he would resume federal executions and that he wants more people to face the death penalty, including cop killers and drug dealers. In his first term, Trump restarted federal executions that had been paused for fifteen years, and no president oversaw as many federal executions since Grover Cleveland
in the late eighteen hundreds. I've been talking to Harold Krant, professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law, about President Biden and the power to issue pardons, could and should President Biden issue pardons to those on death row.
I'm sure that President Biden is concerning this. There are forty people now on death row in the United States, and President Stump has pledged to carry out the death penalty, and President Biden could commute those sentences to life in
prison and thereby preserve those lots. I don't know if you'll do that or not, but it certainly would be a logical step that I think the president should take because he has expressed significant doubts about the death penalty, and so he has the power to commute those sentences and take the issue out of President Trump's fans.
That's only those on federal death row.
That's correct, And.
Yesterday more than sixty members of Congress asked that he grant clemency to those sitting on federal death row and also to thousands of incarcerated people serving unjust sentences. I mean, how within the space of time left would you even figure out which people that are incarcerated are serving unjust sentences.
Yeah, I don't know why there's been such a delay in the office of US Partner Attorney in terms of analyzing and presenting pardons to the president. It's just a power that can be reeled for the benefit of individuals, restore their lives back to them, or restore them to their families. And President Biden just simply has not devoted the time and their energy in terms of exploring the
ambit of his pardon authority. I think the only way now that he could do it is sort of buy more objective factors everybody convicted of a particular crime with ex sentence or as he did before with respect to use of marijuana on federal lands, or you can do everybody on death row, which is a logical step for him to take. I think he will take that, but
you know who knows. Otherwise, you again, we have to identify particular crimes in terms of possession of cocaine or something like that, and then decide to commute sentences of everybody who's been incrucerated for at least years. Something along those lines can be done in terms of mass justice. But you can't look at the details of the eight thousand petitions, not alone the one hundred and fifty thousand. They're now behind federal bars.
Explain the process, the normal process, how a person asked for clemency, and then how it has to be investigated by the part in office. Just explain the process.
So there is a formal petition for a pardon that one would lodge with the US partner attorney, and that would include the facts of the case, the sensing documents, and then your memorandum about why the individual deserves either clemency or pardon. Pardoner attorney would then look to the prosecutor's office to get a reaction and a statement of
either objection or acquiescence from that side. Then would analyze it and then make a recommendation to the president as to whether commutation or a pardon would be appropriate.
So there is also a scenario, I think it's sort of a wild scenario of Biden stepping down for a few weeks so that the vice president could exercise the power to pardon Biden or Biden's son Biden and Biden's son.
It would be incredibly unusual. Yes, I've heard the scenario as well. And one of the issues is which I think is even more striking, is would that be seen as sort of patronizing to have our first female by president simply be there for in power for six weeks and largely in order to pardon two males. I mean, it leaves to sort of a sour taste in my mouth.
But on the other hand, through that maneuver, President Biden would ensure that his son and maybe himself would never be subject to prosecution, and that he would have a role in ensuring that a female does exercise the reigns of office, even though it's for a short time.
I mean, realistically, how much can he get done in the remaining time.
You know, it's late in the day. But I do hope that President Biden prioritizes pardons not only for his son, but principally for those on death row, but then to a wider group as well, people who are laboring under long sentences for non violent felonies such as drug possession and larceny and crimes such as those.
I mean, in the time left. If he wants to sort of try to help his legacy, it's basically using the pardon power and also you know, working with the Senate to try to get more judges confirmed.
What an interesting issue that the Democrats are still planning to increase a bill to increase the judiciary even though Biden won't be able to fill the judge ships. A group of Democrats have agreed to push forward a bill to increase the number of judge ships, you know, bipartisan, because there's just too much work for federal judges. But of course now is not the time you would think that anybody would want to increase a number of judges.
Especially Democrats, because then Trump comes in and has the chance to appoint more judges.
And I do think from everything I've read that the Biden administration is aggressively pushing forward candidates now to fill the remaining judicial slots. Perhaps a little tardily, but they're trying to catch up as best they can.
Let's turn to the Justice Department and the news today that Matt Gates has withdrawn as Trump's pick for Attorney General. That's amid the continuing fallout over a federal sex trafficking investigation that cast doubt on his ability to be confirmed as the nation's chief federal law enforcement officer. Gates, who'd been investigated by the Justice Department before being tapped last
week to head it. Hell I know, you thought that having Gates serve as an money general would have backfired on Trump, even though he might have pushed prosecutions of Trump's enemies, of.
Course, but the government's far broader than just that. And even if Gates would issue indictments against former members of the Biden administration, he's got to win those cases, and he's got to defend the Trump administration in court on a vast variety of claims. And you know that's all risky move by President Trump. But at the same time, you know, there is a historic sort of independence that people talk about with the Department of Justice. That's a tradition.
It's not legally required. So I don't think that taking closer control the Justice Department because I don't think President Trump would be violating any kind of constitutional duty. He would just be violating the norm. And the norm is there for good reasons, very good reasons. But I don't think it's unconstitutional.
You're right that people don't realize even Trump doesn't realize the Justice Department is going to be defending him in court. It's going to be challenge after challenge. I mean, environmental groups are getting ready to challenge, immigration groups are getting ready to challenge, and the Justice Department is going to have to answer all these challenges.
It's going to be a steady diet of challenge after challenge and labor law in terms of Schedule F and on and on. And you know, if he doesn't have skilled lawyers in those places, even some of his conservative appointments of judges won't bail him out.
I mean, he said he's going to revamp the entire justice system. Does he intend to get rid of career prosecutors?
The whole schedule F thing is unclear where the line would be between career appointments and political appointments. Obviously he's shifting it to more political appointments, but I'm not sure whether that's going to include line attorneys in the Apartment of Justice or prosecutors in the various offices around the country. I would presume not with respective prosecutors around the country, but maybe members of the d C. Department of Justice might become politicized.
Will you explain the schedule less?
Yeah.
So, one of the proposals that President Trump made but he had left office before he could implement, was transforming thousands of jobs that are currently occupied by civil servants into political appointments, and the goal was, as we saw in even the Dodge Committee discussion by Elon Musk just yesterday, is the goal is to limit the power of the entrenched bureaucracy and increase the agileness of lawyers, who then
are just employees who could serve the president's will. And so it's a more of a centralized power of the presidency as opposed to sort of objective efforts made by civil servants. And so hundreds of thousands of people who work for the federal government, so obviously not all of them would be included in this new sort of politicized service,
but there might be thousands. And the hope for the Tub administration is if they can make this change, that the government would run more smoothly according to his personal agenda.
There's so much to talk about and consider, and Trump hasn't even taken office yet. Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor Harold Krent other Chicago Kent College of Law. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg