--- title: "Enron executives: convictions, acquittals and the outcomes that changed the record" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/enron/criminal-outcomes/ as_of: 2026-10-08 keywords: ["Enron","LJM","Chewco","Raptor","bankruptcy","corporate governance","structured finance","legal outcomes"] --- # Enron executives: convictions, acquittals and the outcomes that changed the record **Question.** What happened to the principal criminal cases? **Answer.** Enron’s prosecutions produced different outcomes for different people. Skilling was resentenced, Lay’s convictions were vacated after death, several executives pleaded guilty, and some Broadband defendants were acquitted or had charges dismissed. ## Skilling: a narrower legal theory and a later sentence - Analysis: Jeffrey Skilling’s May 2006 verdict covered nineteen counts, while nine insider-trading counts ended in acquittal. His appeals changed important parts of the case. In 2010, the Supreme Court confined honest-services fraud to bribery and kickback schemes and held that his charged conduct did not meet that theory. It rejected his fair-trial challenge but sent the conspiracy issue back for harmless-error analysis. The opinion explicitly left open whether the defect required the conviction to fall. [s-d125] [s-d129] [s-d149] - Documented: On 25 May 2006, Jeffrey Skilling was convicted on 19 counts: conspiracy, twelve securities-fraud counts, one insider-trading count and five false-statement-to-auditors counts. He was acquitted of nine other insider-trading counts. [s-d125] [s-d129] - Outcome: The original 292-month sentence was later replaced by a 168-month sentence in June 2013; the 2010 honest-services ruling did not produce an acquittal on all charges. - Documented: In June 2010, the Supreme Court held that the honest-services statute covered bribery and kickback schemes and that Skilling’s charged conduct did not fit that theory. It upheld rejection of his fair-trial challenge, vacated the ruling on his conspiracy conviction and remanded for harmless-error analysis. [s-d129] [s-d149] - Qualification: The Court expressly said the legal defect did not necessarily require reversal of the conspiracy conviction. The later sentencing record confirms that convictions remained, rather than a blanket exoneration. - Outcome: On 21 June 2013, Skilling was resentenced to 168 months and ordered to forfeit approximately $42 million toward victim restitution. - Analysis: The sentence changed on a separate track. The original 292-month term included an enhancement that the Fifth Circuit found erroneous in 2009. Under a 2013 agreement, Skilling waived further challenges and did not contest forfeiture and restitution; the judge imposed 168 months and approximately $42 million forfeiture for victims. The retained final sentencing record establishes a reduced sentence, not an acquittal or erasure of all convictions. [s-d129] - Documented: Skilling’s initial 292-month sentence was vacated after the Fifth Circuit found an erroneous financial-institution sentencing enhancement in January 2009. In 2013, the parties agreed to recommend 168–210 months in exchange for waivers of further challenges and agreement not to contest forfeiture and restitution. The judge imposed 168 months on 21 June 2013. [s-d129] - Qualification: This is a historical sentencing outcome. It does not state that Skilling remains imprisoned at the dossier’s publication date. ## Lay: the verdict did not remain a conviction - Analysis: Kenneth Lay was found guilty on six counts by a jury and four more in a separate bench trial. He died before sentencing. On October 17, 2006, his convictions were vacated and the indictment dismissed. That is the indispensable outcome when recounting the earlier verdict. The government’s separately announced civil forfeiture claim against his estate does not restore the criminal conviction or establish that the claimed recovery was finally awarded. [s-d125] [s-d126] [s-d172] - Documented: Lay was found guilty in May 2006 on six jury-trial counts and four separate bench-trial counts. After his death on 5 July 2006, his convictions were vacated and the indictment dismissed on 17 October 2006. [s-d125] [s-d126] [s-d172] - Qualification: The vacatur after death must accompany any account of the verdict. A separately announced civil forfeiture action against his estate is not a surviving criminal conviction or proof of a final civil recovery. ## Finance executives and the distinction between proceedings - Analysis: Andrew Fastow admitted using LJM transactions to manipulate Enron’s results and participating in the self-enrichment associated with Southampton. His January 2004 guilty plea was followed by a six-year sentence in September 2006. Earlier announcements describing a ten-year agreement are therefore not the final sentencing result. His separate SEC settlement imposed a permanent officer-and-director bar without admission or denial of the civil allegations; that formulation does not negate the criminal admissions. [s-d123] [s-d133] - Documented: Andrew Fastow pleaded guilty to two conspiracy counts in January 2004 and was sentenced to six years in prison on 26 September 2006. He admitted manipulating Enron’s results through LJM transactions and enriching himself and others through Southampton. [s-d123] - Qualification: The six-year sentence supersedes earlier descriptions of a ten-year plea agreement. These admissions concern Fastow and the specified conduct, not every investor or employee connected to LJM. - Documented: In the separate January 2004 SEC settlement, Fastow accepted a permanent officer-and-director bar and an injunction without admitting or denying the civil allegations. The regulator described coordinated financial relief exceeding $23 million and cooperation with the investigation. [s-d123] [s-d133] - Qualification: The civil no-admission formulation does not cancel his criminal guilty plea. Early financial-relief figures and later forfeiture descriptions overlap and should not be added as independent recoveries. - Outcome: His actual 2006 prison sentence was six years, despite the earlier settlement announcement’s ten-year headline. - Analysis: Michael Kopper received a 37-month sentence and $50,000 fine in November 2006. Ben Glisan had pleaded guilty in September 2003 and received 60 months, with forfeiture and a tax-refund waiver. Glisan admitted that Talon’s apparent outside investment was returned with a prearranged profit before its hedging activity. Richard Causey’s securities-fraud plea led to a 66-month sentence in November 2006, together with forfeiture, a fine and abandonment of deferred-compensation claims. [s-d150] [s-d160] [s-d128] [s-d130] - Documented: Ben Glisan pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud on 10 September 2003 and was sentenced immediately to 60 months. He agreed to forfeit $938,000 and not seek a refund of approximately $412,000 in taxes. [s-d128] - Qualification: Glisan admitted that Talon’s supposed outside capital had been returned with profit before the vehicle’s hedging activity, defeating the intended at-risk capital condition. - Documented: Richard Causey pleaded guilty to securities fraud in December 2005 and received a 66-month sentence on 15 November 2006. His plea included $1.25 million forfeiture, a $25,000 fine and relinquishment of deferred-compensation claims. [s-d130] - Qualification: Causey admitted participating in false or misleading filings and public statements about Enron’s financial condition. - Analysis: Lea Fastow’s case concerned a false income-tax return and RADR-derived income. The disposition was a misdemeanor plea and one year of custody; the earlier felony charges were dismissed under her cooperation agreement. It should not be conflated with the financial-reporting conspiracy admitted by Andrew Fastow. [s-d156] - Documented: Lea Fastow pleaded guilty to filing a false federal income-tax return, a misdemeanor, and received a one-year custodial sentence in May 2004. Her earlier felony charges were dismissed under the cooperation agreement. [s-d156] - Qualification: Her admitted conduct concerned unreported RADR-derived income. It is distinct from the financial-reporting crimes admitted by Andrew Fastow; she should not be described as convicted of the dismissed felonies. The plea release names RADR without establishing its exact legal vehicle; this reference is not silently identified as RADR ZWS LLC. ## Broadband defendants did not share one result - Analysis: Kenneth Rice admitted misrepresentations about Enron Broadband’s products, software and performance and received a 27-month sentence in June 2007. Kevin Hannon, the former COO, received two years after a conspiracy plea. Those outcomes do not describe every defendant in the broader Broadband case: the retained retrospective records Michael Krautz’s acquittal, dismissal of Scott Yeager’s charges after appeal, and Kevin Howard’s separate records-falsification plea and probation. [s-d252] [s-d201] - Documented: Kenneth Rice, former Enron Broadband CEO, was sentenced to 27 months on 18 June 2007 after pleading guilty to securities fraud. The same announcement records a two-year sentence and $125,000 fine for former Broadband COO Kevin Hannon, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy in August 2004. [s-d252] - Qualification: Rice admitted false statements about the division’s products, software, network and performance; his approximately $15 million forfeiture was intended for victim compensation. - Attributed: A November 2011 retrospective reports that Enron Broadband defendant Michael Krautz was acquitted and that charges against Scott Yeager were dismissed after appellate proceedings. It reports that Kevin Howard pleaded guilty to falsifying records and served a year of probation. [s-d201] - Qualification: These reported outcomes concern different defendants. They prevent the existence of the broader Broadband prosecution being treated as a conviction of everyone named in it. ## Separate civil action against Kopper - Analysis: Kopper’s civil case also concerned the RADR wind-farm structures. The SEC alleged hidden funding and nominee investment rather than an independent divestment; the announced civil agreement combined forfeiture and disgorgement with an officer-and-director bar. It was without admission or denial on the civil allegations. His criminal plea and sentence remain separate outcomes, and the sums received by a group of participants are not assigned entirely to one person. [s-d303] - Attributed: The SEC’s August 2002 Kopper action alleged that secretly funded RADR entities retained Enron control over wind farms while appearing independent. Its release records approximately $2.7 million distributions and a later $1.8 million repurchase gain to Kopper and others. Kopper simultaneously agreed to a civil injunction, permanent officer-and-director bar and approximately $12 million disgorgement and forfeiture. [s-d303] - Qualification: The civil settlement was announced subject to court approval and without admitting or denying the allegations. The related criminal plea and later sentence are separately established; family-member details are unnecessary to the public account. ## Sources - [s-d125] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d129] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d149] Court record source · s-d149 - [s-d126] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d172] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d123] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d133] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Securities and Exchange Commission - [s-d150] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d160] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d128] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d130] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d156] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d252] Regulatory record concerning Enron or an identified participant, US Department of Justice - [s-d201] Media source · s-d201 - [s-d303] Other source · s-d303