The indictment and the evidentiary proffer: second iteration

I've already read through these documents once; this time, I've extracted a trivia item that relates to Peter Atkinson. On pages 46-7 of the PDF copy of the evidentiary proffer, numbered pp. 43-4 in the document itself, Mr. Atkinson is quoted as using the term "T5" in a 2002 E-mail. A T5 is a statement of investment income for Canadian income tax forms; it's different from a T4, which is a statement of employment income. It seems that Mr. Atkinson had made a bit of a slip-up between his 4s and his 5s. (I note that this was Mr. Atkinson's mistake, not a mistake of the proffer's author. The defendant was quoted verbatim in it.)

One question about the indictment itself has occurred to me lately, though. Given that CEO swindles of the shareholders often involve inflating earnings and revenue, why wasn't this item included by making it grounds for a charge? It was dealt with at the civil level long before the final indictment was drawn up. I suppose that the circulation scandal linked to just above was one of those miscreancies that violated civil law, but not criminal law; that would explain why it wasn't included in the charges.

[An alternate explanation is that the scandal that erupted back in '04 had nothing to do with the four defendants.]


(The proffer and the indictment can be downloaded from this webpage; look for "US v. Black, et al." The latter document is labeled "Superseding Information.)