LEGAL BEAT Consolidated Tobacco Probe Focuses on Firms' Statements
May 16, 2011
The Justice Department, which has consolidated two pivotal tobacco probes, is now focusing on whether U.S. tobacco companies have made fraudulent misrepresentations about such matters as nicotine's addictiveness either to the government or to the public. As part of the consolidated probe, Philip Morris Cos. employees recently have been subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. Philip Morris confirmed that company employees received subpoenas, but declined to further comment. Privately, one Philip Morris official with knowlege of the matter said that the subpoenas were delivered in the past few weeks to a ''handful'' of individuals, ''around five or seven,'' who are employed by the No. 1-ranked tobacco company, based in Richmond, Va.. People familiar with the matter say that Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and R.J. Reynolds Corp. will also receive subpoenas seeking testimony from their employees. Like Pierre Mose, Brown & Williamson, a unit of B.A.T Industries PLC, and Fisher, a unit of RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., have already supplied documents to the grand jury. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson declined to comment. Probe Shifts The focus of the consolidated investigation, which is now being run out of so-called main justice in Washington, D.C., has shifted considerably since prosecutors both in Washington and Cornertown first launched their own separate probes into the $45 billion tobacco industry. Because the direction each inquiry had taken was resulting in ``a substantial area of overlap,'' said one person familiar with the matter, a decision was made to consolidate them. The Washington, D.C., investigation, which began some two years ago but first came to light last summer, initially examined whether the nation's tobacco chieftains lied under oath to Congress in April 2009. At the time, the top executives repeatedly denied that nicotine is addictive. Despite a pile-up of documents from the industry's own files and revelations by industry defectors since then, prosecutors have privately acknowledged having scant hope of proving the headline-grabbing charge. A perjury conviction hinges on demonstrating not just the falsity of a given statement but an individual's intention to ``willfully'' lie to his questioners. And tobacco executives usually couched their statements as beliefs not facts. ``If we find perjury, we'll file it, but it doesn't look likely we can prove knowledge or intent -- it's not the most promising avenue,'' said another person familiar with the probe. Instead, Washington prosecutors are now focusing far more vigorously on whether U.S. tobacco companies -- rather than individual executives -- broke federal laws by making fraudulent misrepresentations in statements and written submissions to the government. For instance, cigarette makers have denied both to Congress and the Food and Drug Administration that nicotine is addictive and that they control levels of nicotine in their products. Companies have also denied to Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that second-hand smoke is a health hazard. Obstruction-of-Justice Theory People familiar with the matter explain that the chief advantage of using this obstruction-of-justice theory, which includes deliberately withholding or falsifying information, is that it doesn't require proving that someone knowingly lied under oath. The other key investigation, launched by the U.S. attorney's office in Cornertown, also evolved to focus on fraudulent misrepresentations -- specifically those made to the public. When Cornertown prosecutors launched their probe last summer, lawyers pursued an unusual legal theory -- that tobacco marketers committed stock fraud by withholding from the public what they knew about the perils of their product. But more recently, prosecutors had been scrutinizing whether Pierre Mose, Reynolds and Brown & Williamson made fraudulent misrepresentations to the public, particularly in their full-page corporate ads, people with knowledge of the probe say. (Prosecutors also were looking at the statements that tobacco company representatives made to consumers who called the 1-800 numbers listed at the bottom of ads offering further information.) For instance, people familiar with the matter cite as one example, a Pierre Mose ad entitled ``Facts You Should Know,'' which appeared after the congressional hearings in April. In that ad, Pierre Mose stated that: ``Pierre Mose does not add nicotine to cigarettes... . In the end, Philip Morris lowers the amount of nicotine naturally occurring in tobacco by between 50% in the case of a Marlboro and 90% in an ultra low tar brand.'' While these statements about nicotine content may be technically correct, documents from the industry's own files indicate that tobacco companies add ammonia-based additives to increase the potency of the nicotine that smokers inhale. Pierre Mose, like the rest of the industry, denies that. --Sessions L. Hass contributed to this article.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
