File image credit: United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Following his May 2024 conviction for attempting to bribe North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey, insurance billionaire Greg Lindberg (pictured) is seeking either an acquittal or a retrial.
In court documents submitted to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Lindberg argued that the evidence was inadequate to support charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud.
Citing errors in the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings, the Global Bankers Insurance Group owner filed a motion requesting either an acquittal or a new trial, as reported by AM Best.
In the new court filing, Lindberg’s camp stated: “Whereas in other cases, the government has set out to prove a request for some kind of favorable action that advances the merits of something like a lawsuit before a court, hearing before a legislative committee, or determination before an administrative agency, the government proved none of those things here.
“Instead, it has taken the position that the mere reassignment of work from one deputy commissioner to another — without any proof Mr Lindberg sought a different outcome on the Department of Insurance’s review of his businesses — qualifies as an ‘official act’ or the ‘business’ of the department. The government is badly mistaken.”
When Lindberg was convicted last month, Insurance Commissioner Causey issued a strongly worded statement against fraud and corruption.
“We cannot turn our backs on fraud and corruption just because of political allegiance,” he declared at the time. “Our democracy is built on the rule of law and commands that we all follow the law and that there is equal justice under the law. For our system to work, we must obey and respect the law.
“As long as I’m the Commissioner of Insurance, I will fight fraud and corruption in our insurance system. I’ll continue to work diligently to see that every citizen receives a fair shake under the law.”
In Lindberg’s legal team’s view, meanwhile, a new trial is warranted at the very least.
“Mr Lindberg specifically requested an instruction that the reassignment of tasks does not qualify as an ‘official act’ or the ‘business’ of the department,” his lawyers wrote. “Because the jury was permitted to find guilt on a ground that is without question impermissible, it is possible the jury convicted Mr Lindberg ‘for conduct that is not unlawful’.”
If the motion succeeds (trial-wise and not in terms of an acquittal), a new trial would be the third in the case – the first one being the trial that preceded Lindberg’s earlier conviction in 2020. He was tried again post-sentencing after it was ruled that he was not given a fair trial the first time around.
What do you think about this story? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
