A former Brooklyn federal judge appointed to fight the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn wrote in an earlier ruling that denying the government’s decision to dismiss a case was “abuse of discretion.”
Then-Justice Judgment of John Gleeson The 2012 federal lawsuit against banking giant HSBC came at a time when it was negotiating a deal to avoid criminal cases in the case of restrictions on money laundering.
“The government has the absolute right to decide not to prosecute,” Gleeson wrote.
“In my view, if the government now moves to dismiss this case, it is an abuse [judicial] The desire to deny that movement, ”he said.
The government’s agreement with the bank called for a $ 1.9 billion payout and a five-year institutional reform, at which time the tariffs would drop, as they had in 2017.
Although Gleason refused to dismiss an abuse, he later intervened in a 20-page ruling, suggesting that a judge could deny the government’s motion to dismiss if it did so in the public interest.
Citing from a previous ruling in a separate case, Gleeson wrote: “If the dismissal is” totally contrary to the public interest of the plaintiff, the court is generally required to issue a lawyer’s determination. “
He referred to prosecutors as having “absolute authority” rather than absolute authority.
There are other differences in the cases as well.
HSBC has never pleaded guilty, and eventually escaped with no criminal charges with fines and reforms, which were mocked by critics at the time.
Flynn faced an investigation in December 2017, alleging that he lied to the FBI, but later withdrew the plea deal and asked for a new trial.
Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan, who heads the Flynn case, named Gleason to advise the court that Washington DC, under a federal law, “should issue an order to show that Mr. Flynn should not be charged with criminal contempt.” IT Gives broad authority to punish “misbehavior in or near.” The New York Law Journal.
But as The Post reported Thursday, Gleason seemed to have already made up his mind, judging from an edition he wrote for The Washington Post this week.
“Flynn’s crime has already been adjudicated,” John Gleason wrote with David O’Neill and Marshall Miller, former top judicial officers and Gleason’s partners in the law firm Debvois & Plimpton.
“So, if the court finds that dismissal can lead to miscarriage of justice, it may deny the motion, refuse to allow the guilty plea, and proceed with sentencing.”
“There is usually nothing in the department’s attempt to dismiss Flynn’s case. Records improper political influence. “
But Gleason’s Op-ed He reiterates that changing Flynn’s guilty plea to lying to the FBI in connection with his 2016 links with then-Russian ambassador Sergei Kislak would “reduce impropriety.”