Informant (79 page)

With encouragement from government officials, Whitacre applied for executive clemency from the President. He seemed a strong candidate. His self-destructive history, driven by his psychological difficulties, had left him with a sentence that took no account of his unprecedented cooperation in exposing one of the largest corporate conspiracies in history.

The application received substantial support. FBI agents spoke publicly about their discomfort with the sentence, or wrote letters to the Justice Department expressing their belief that Whitacre should be released. United States senators, including John Ashcroft, the future Attorney General, asked the department to consider the application carefully. For the first time in years, Whitacre and his family felt hopeful.

On January 7, 2001, President Bill Clinton appeared at a policy forum in New York’s Waldorf-Astoria hotel. There, a number of important figures, including Dwayne Andreas, were being honored. And on that evening, Clinton made clear that politicians would not be backing away from Andreas despite the revelations of widespread corruption at his company.

“I want to congratulate Dwayne Andreas, my good friend,” Clinton said, “and thank him for his many kindnesses to me.”

Twelve days later, on his last day in office, Bill Clinton signed 176 pardons and commutations—bestowing executive mercy on two fugitives, a felon under active criminal investigation, and a drug dealer. Many of the controversial recipients had connections to campaign contributors or others with influence at the White House—a fact that led to congressional hearings and a criminal investigation.

But Mark Whitacre was passed over. He remains in federal prison.

A
FTERWORD

T
his is a book about the malleable nature of truth. As the story shows, reality can serve as the handmaiden of fiction—real phone records may document a call, yet the substance of a conversation can be twisted into any meaning. Throughout these pages, I’ve tried to play upon that line between fact and fantasy. While everything described in this book occurred, the story was intentionally structured to lend temporary credence to some of the many lies told in this investigation. Essentially, I was attempting to put readers in the same uncertain position as the investigators, all while dropping hints—admittedly subtle at times—about where reality began.

Even the title,
The Informant
, was a bit of a deception. While prosecutors and reporters often used the term, under FBI rules, Whitacre was technically not an informant in Harvest King—rather, for reasons of little consequence, he would be classified as a cooperating witness. Instead of alluding to Whitacre’s work in the price-fixing case, the title was a reference to his character, one seemingly influenced by mental illness. While he turned in the price-fixers, he also turned on the FBI and his subsequent employer. He informed on possible ADM saboteurs, knowing that the threat was a lie. He repeated rumors against others. He was willing to inform on the failures and crimes—both real and imagined—of everyone other than himself. But in the end, it was Mark Whitacre—a man who remains as puzzling as he is tragic—who was most damaged by his falsehoods.

It is said that truth can set you free. But as this story shows, a corollary also holds true: Lying can leave you imprisoned—in every possible meaning of that word.

Kurt Eichenwald

June 2000

N
OTES AND
S
OURCES

This book grew out of my five years of coverage in the
New York Times
of the scandals at the Archer Daniels Midland Company. It is based on more than eight hundred hours of interviews, many of which were tape-recorded, with more than one hundred participants, as well as thousands of documents. Every person who appears in a significant role in these events was contacted—either directly, through a representative, or both—and offered an opportunity to be interviewed.

The documents include investigative notes of interviews, internal government teletypes and e-mails, personal diaries and notes, schedule books, expense and travel records, telephone logs, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, confidential corporate and government memos, grand jury testimony, sworn statements, books, and news clippings. Among the most important documents I relied on were transcripts of the tapes recorded during Harvest King, as well as copies of certain of the audio- and videotapes themselves.

Many of the interviews were conducted on condition of anonymity. However, none of the participants in any of these interviews will be named. That is because, in a book, identifying those who spoke on the record makes it far easier to determine those who did not.

To ensure accuracy in a story involving so many people who have lied, I established a “pyramid of credibility.” Tapes and transcripts were at the base; they trumped all other recollections or documents. Second were contemporaneous documents—teletypes, expense records and travel documents, contemporaneous diaries, notes and memos, schedule books, phone logs. Just above that were 302s, but only for establishing what was said at an interview, not necessarily for the underlying truth of the statements. Third were sworn statements and testimony. Last were interviews. In essence, the story was built on a foundation of documents, then fleshed out with information from interviews that was corroborated by those records.

Most taped dialogue appears as it did in the transcripts. However, the conversations are not presented in their entirety. A transcript of a single conversation can take up hundreds of pages, enough to fill this entire book. So, in the taped dialogue, I have edited the conversations down to portions that communicate the essence of the discussion. Such editing was usually done in blocks—in other words, whole sections were kept together for both fairness and accuracy.

At times, participants made statements that, even in context, were difficult to interpret. It is the nature of conversation that a few participants will wander away from the main point, or throw out an idea that is simply off the topic. If I could not understand the point of a statement, and the speaker was unable or unwilling to explain to me its meaning, the statement and all surrounding dialogue were not used.

Finally, some taped dialogue was edited for clarity. Oftentimes, speakers would interrupt each other, repeat themselves midsentence, use confusing grammar, or break up their conversation with frequent nonverbal sounds. If the statement could be easily understood without editing out those unnecessary elements, it appears in this book exactly as it was spoken. In those rare instances where cluttering, meaningless elements made the statements too hard to easily understand, they were edited out. In two instances, recollections from interviews were used to fill in a word or two that were unintelligible on the tapes. None of the words recalled by participants were incriminating in any way, and fit perfectly in context.

The transcripts themselves are not sacred texts; transcripts of tapes from two different devices that recorded the same meeting sometimes contained different interpretations of what was said. In such instances, I have gone with the fullest transcript whenever possible. Twice, the transcripts clashed with what sounded to me like clear words spoken on the actual tape. This only happened in instances where the transcribed statements made no sense in context. Those two instances are explained in these notes.

All other dialogue and quotations come from participants or witnesses to conversations, or documents that describe the discussion. In a few instances, secondary sources were informed of events or conversations by a participant. If those secondary sources agreed on what they were told—and it was corroborated by documents—the information was used. Such dialogue and events were never incriminating.

Because of the many sources used in reconstructing dialogue, readers should not assume that any individual participant in a conversation is the source of the statement or even among the sources. When the text describes someone as having thought or felt something, it comes either directly from that individual, from a document written by that individual, notes or other records of that individual’s comments to a third party, or others to whom the people in question directly described their experience.

Of course, I am not claiming that this is a perfect transcript of everything that was said and done during this eight-year story. It does, however, represent the best recollection of these events and conversations and more accurately reflects reality than mere paraphrase would. Invariably in the course of my interviews with participants, they would find that my pressing them for specific details and words led to greater recall of the events, or of ideas for records that might help them to better remember what happened. People who began an interview claiming a poor memory often were eventually able to reconstruct tiny details of events, which matched the recollections of others.

In some instances, I was unable to determine the precise date that an event occurred. In those cases, I have presented the relevant scene at the point in the narrative that is most consistent with the apparent timing in other documents and interviews. When that occurs, I give no indication of the event’s date.

Descriptions of individual settings come from interviews, documents, or personal observation. Most details of weather conditions come from records on file with the National Climatic Data Center.

PROLOGUE

1
Some details of the Country Club of Decatur from personal observation, as well as a series of 1995 photographs included with some of the organization’s promotional materials. Also from Robert W. and Maxine Kopetz,
The History of the Country Club of Decatur
, 1993.

1–4
Some details of Wilson interview from FBI notes of interview, known as an FD-302 for case #60A-SI-46290.

4–6
Dialogue between Whitacre, Wilson, and Mick Andreas from a transcript of FBI tape #1B138, dated June 27, 1995.

6–7
Some details of Whitacre’s meeting with the FBI on the evening of June 27, 1995, from an FD-302 of that date. Other details from an FD-504b from that night, an FBI document that describes the chain of custody for an original tape recording.

CHAPTER ONE

11
The 1992 visits to Decatur by Gorbachev and Quayle were described in a history of the Decatur Airport, which can be found on the Internet at
http://www.decatur-airport.org/html/history.htm
.

11
Details of Andreas’s political contributions from Jill Abramson and Phil Kuntz, “Antitrust Probe of Archer Daniels Puts Spotlight on Chairman Andreas’s Vast Political Influence,’’
Wall Street Journal
, July 11, 1995, p. A18; “Hedging Bets,’’
Wall Street Journal
, May 29, 1992, p. A1; “Archer Daniels Tops List of Political Contributors,”
Wall Street Journal
, August 14, 1991, p. A10. Also, Andreas was featured in a 1998
Frontline
broadcast, “So You Want to Buy a President.’’ See
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/president/players/andreas
.

12
The laundering of Andreas’s twenty-five-thousand-dollar contribution into the account of a Watergate burglar was described by Bernard Gwertzman, “GAO Report Asks Justice Inquiry into GOP Funds,’’
New York Times
, August 27, 1972, p. A1. Andreas’s indictment for the one-hundred-thousand-dollar Humphrey contribution was described in “Cox Charges Illegal Gift to Humphrey,’’
New York Times
, October 20, 1973, p. 17.

12
The description of the Reagan statue and the other information about Decatur and ADM’s role there from E. J. Kahn Jr.’s detailed 1991 book about the company entitled
Supermarketer to the World
(Warner Books, 1991), pp. 9–14.

12–16
Some details of the September 10, 1992, visit by Ajinomoto to the ADM headquarters from the trial testimony of Kanji Mimoto, in the case of
United States of America v. Michael D. Andreas et al
., number 96CR762, as well as in the testimony of Hirokazu Ikeda from the same trial, and the FD-302s of Mimoto, Ikeda, and Fujiwara dated July 1996.

13
Two excellent books analyzing the Japanese negotiating styles and the psychology of Japanese businessmen were written by the same man, Robert M. March. They are entitled
The Japanese Negotiator
(Kodansha International, 1991) and
Reading the Japanese Mind: The Realities Behind Their Thoughts and Actions
(Kodansha International, 1996).

13–14
Randall’s professional background from Kahn,
Supermarketer to the World
, pp. 126–27.

14
Details of the use of ADM’s products and its growth from a variety of internal corporate documents, including “Amazing Grain: A Guide to the Wonders of Corn,’’ “Archer Daniels Midland: An Overview,’’ “ADM Bioproducts: Lysine,’’ and “ADM Bioproducts: Threonine/Tryptophan,’’ as well as the annual reports from the company dated from 1992 through 1998.

15
ADM’s investment in its lysine plant from
Chemical Marketing Reporter
, “ADM Board Approves $150 mm Plunge Into Fine Chemicals,’’ May 1, 1989, p. 7.

15
ADM’s lysine capacity in 1992 from a company press release of October 23, 1991, “ADM to Expand Lysine Production.’’

15
The production problems in the lysine plant are described in the FD-302 of Michael D. “Mick” Andreas, dated November 4, 1992, for case file number 192B-SI-45899.

16
The tour by Ajinomoto executives of the ADM lysine plant and the attempt to steal the lysine technology was described in Mimoto’s trial testimony in
U.S. v. Michael D. Andreas et al.
Additional information from the FD-302s of Mimoto and Ikeda, as well as from notes taken during the tour by one of the participants.

16–17
The author reviewed contemporaneous phone logs that recorded this and other calls placed to Mark Whitacre by some of the Japanese executives who toured the ADM plant.