The Informant

Kurt Eichenwald

4 ideas

  1. ADM executive wears wire while embezzling

    He then spent roughly two and a half years secretly recording ADM colleagues and Asian rivals fixing global lysine prices, while also embezzling about $9 million from ADM and lying to his handlers. ADM pleaded guilty in 1996 and paid a $100 million antitrust fine, then a record. Top executives including Michael Andreas and Terry Wilson were convicted in 1998, and Whitacre, prosecuted for fraud, received a longer prison sentence than the men he had taped.

  2. Competitor as friend, customer as enemy

    A cartel works by inverting the usual market loyalties. Rival firms treat each other as partners and treat buyers as the adversary to be extracted from. The lysine conspirators set prices and divided sales volumes by market at friendly meetings in hotels and trade-association settings. Because every participant gains only if all hold the line, the conspiracy needs ongoing face-to-face coordination to keep members from cheating, and those recurring meetings are its greatest vulnerability to recording.

  3. Tainted informants can still carry true cases

    An informant's personal corruption does not invalidate the evidence he produces when that evidence is independently verifiable. Whitacre's audio and video tapes recorded the conspirators in their own words. That allowed prosecutors to win convictions even after their star witness was exposed as a thief and liar. The defense's best strategy was to put the informant on trial instead of the recorded conduct, so the case hinged on keeping the tapes central.

  4. The whistleblower as unreliable narrator

    Treat an insider's disclosure as possibly serving motives he has not stated, even when it is true. Whitacre used his role as a cooperating witness partly as cover, apparently expecting heroic status to shield his own theft. His handlers' reliance on him made them slow to question his stories. Seeing the informant as a self-interested actor, not a pure truth-teller, explains why investigations can be both vindicated and compromised by the same person.

Save and mark ideas in the app