Meese Probably Broke 3 Criminal Laws, Report Says

WASHINGTON — An independent counsel said in an 814-page report released today that Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III probably broke three criminal laws while in office but that prosecution was not warranted.

“In certain instances Mr. Meese’s conduct probably violated the criminal law, but . . . no prosecution is warranted,” said the report by the independent counsel, James C. McKay, detailing various conflict-of-interest charges against the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

The report said the investigation was incomplete because important witnesses--including businessman E. Robert Wallach, American financier W. Franklyn Chinn, Swiss financier Bruce Rappaport and unnamed foreign government officials--refused to testify.

McKay’s investigation centered on charges that Meese helped the New York defense contractor Wedtech Corp. get government contracts and was involved in plans to build an oil pipeline in Iraq.

Meese was accused of aiding Wallach’s efforts to win U.S. government backing for the proposed Iraqi pipeline deal even after being told in a secret 1985 memo from Wallach that the deal involved illegal payoffs of up to $700 million to Israel and its Labor Party.

Meese helped set up a meeting between a top White House national security aide and former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to discuss the project.

‘Currently Available’

On Wedtech, the report said “the independent counsel has determined that the currently available evidence does not show any criminal wrongdoing by Mr. Meese.”

Wallach has been indicted on charges of illegally trying to influence Meese and other U.S. officials to steer Army contracts to Wedtech.

With regard to the oil pipeline project, the report said McKay had determined that “the available admissible evidence” was insufficient to conclude that Meese had broken the law.

McKay also investigated meetings Meese held with regional Bell Telephone executives while holding $14,000 in telephone stocks.

The report said that “there is a real possibility that the market value of the stock would be affected” by Meese’s meetings and that Meese “knew of his financial interest.”

McKay concluded that Meese’s conduct had probably violated U.S. laws, but “a criminal prosecution . . . for those violations is not warranted under the particular facts of this case.”

‘Special Facts’ Unspecified

The report also examined a series of 1985 stock sales by Meese, the proceeds of which were not declared on his income tax returns until seven months after copies of the returns had been turned over to the special prosecutor.

McKay concluded in his report that a court “would probably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Meese violated (federal tax law) by willfully filing a materially false tax return and . . . failing to pay his income tax when due.”

Nevertheless, he decided that prosecution of these violations was unwarranted because of unspecified “special facts.”

The special prosecutor also investigated how a Washington real estate family, headed by Howard Bender, provided funds for a job for Meese’s wife, Ursula, while it sought renewal of a real estate lease with the Justice Department.

The report cleared Meese of wrongdoing in that matter, saying it could find no evidence that he was aware of any efforts by the developers to influence him improperly.

The report, capping a 14-month investigation by McKay, had been filed under seal with a special panel of three federal appeals court judges. It was released after Meese’s attorneys added their comments.