On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Stephen Calk, the former CEO of Federal Savings Bank in Chicago, who was convicted of bribery.
According to Reuters, Calk had sought to overturn his conviction for approving $16 million in risky loans to Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's 2016 campaign chairman, in an attempt to secure a top position in Trump's administration.
The Supreme Court's decision upholds the lower court's ruling, which found Calk guilty of financial institution bribery and conspiracy. This verdict stems from Calk's actions in 2016 when he approved the loans to Manafort, who subsequently recommended Calk for the position of U.S. Army secretary to Trump's transition team.
Calk, who had served as an Army reservist for 16 years, was interviewed for the position of Army under secretary in January 2017. However, he was not selected for the role. The prosecution argued that Calk had used his federally insured bank as a personal resource to gain prestige and power.
Following his conviction in 2021, Calk received a sentence of one year and one day in prison. The punishment also included two years of supervised release, 800 hours of community service, and a substantial fine of $1.25 million.
The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld both Calk's conviction and sentence in November 2023. This decision set the stage for Calk's ultimately unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.
In his appeal, Calk argued that his actions should not be considered corrupt under federal anti-bribery law. He claimed that Manafort's assistance in securing a government position was not a "thing of value" with a specific dollar amount, and therefore should not fall under the purview of the law.
Calk's legal team contended that the 2nd Circuit's decision contradicted rulings from four other federal appellate courts. These courts had previously determined that the term "thing of value" in bribery cases does not encompass anything a recipient subjectively values.
Furthermore, Calk argued that the 2nd Circuit erred in finding he could have acted corruptly by having an "improper purpose," even if he genuinely believed his actions were in the bank's best interest. The U.S. Justice Department, opposing Calk's appeal, maintained that "anything of value" can include intangible items, not just those with a monetary value. They also disputed Calk's claim of a split among appeals courts, describing it as "misplaced."
The case against Calk is intrinsically linked to the wider narrative of Paul Manafort's legal troubles. Manafort, a veteran Republican operative, was convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud in 2018, receiving a 7-1/2 year prison sentence.
However, Manafort's fortunes changed in December 2020 when then-President Trump pardoned him, just four weeks before leaving office. This pardon came after Manafort had been released to home confinement.
Audrey Strauss, who was the U.S. attorney in Manhattan at the time of Calk's conviction, succinctly summarized the prosecution's view of the case: "Calk used his federally insured bank as a personal piggybank to try and buy himself prestige and power."
The Supreme Court's decision to reject Calk's appeal marks the end of a significant legal battle. Stephen Calk, former CEO of Federal Savings Bank, will serve his sentence for bribery related to $16 million in loans to Paul Manafort. The case highlights the intersection of banking, politics, and the justice system, demonstrating the consequences of attempting to leverage financial power for political gain.
