Auto Racing Figures Are on Honda Bribery Case Witness List
Tentative witness lists for the Honda bribery and kickback case include figures from the world of auto racing, including an Indianapolis 500 winner.
Lawyers for the defendants would not explain the connection of the sports figures to the upcoming trial.
The U.S. District Court trial of two former American Honda Motor Co. executives, John Billmyer of Raleigh, N.C., and Dennis Josleyn of Penn Valley, Calif., is scheduled to begin Feb. 22 and last at least two months. Prosecutors say Billmyer, Josleyn and other executives received $15 million in jewelry, kickbacks, cash and clothing over 14 years in return for Honda and Acura cars and dealerships.
A key to the case, Stanley James Cardiges, former senior vice president, is named on the government’s witness list. The 49-year-old Laguna Hills man pleaded guilty to racketeering and other crimes just as his joint trial with Billmyer and Josleyn was about to begin last week. He faces 35 years in prison and a $1-million fine.
Billmyer’s list includes American Honda President Koichi Amemiya, three former American Honda executives, NASCAR driver Darryl Waltrip, NASCAR team owner Junior Johnson, IndyCar owner Roger Penske, and Bobby Rahal, who has won the Indianapolis 500 and is a three-time IndyCar champion.
The government’s list included Cardiges and 15 of the 20 people who earlier pleaded guilty.
Josleyn’s list includes everyone named on Billmyer’s list and the prosecution’s list, all people referred to in the indictment, and three other people.
Billmyer, 65, a former American Honda senior vice president, is charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud for allegedly receiving money from dealers in return for favorable treatment. He faces five years in prison.
Josleyn, 47, a former West Coast Honda sales manager, is charged with mail fraud for allegedly receiving kickbacks from dealers and sales and advertising schemes. He faces 30 years in prison.
Prosecutors have called Honda the largest victim in the case.
Honda spokesman Jeffrey Smith said: “The purpose of such a list needs to be put in perspective. It’s merely a tool to allow a judge to determine whether the members of a potential jury have any personal knowledge of a wide pool of potential witnesses.”
