CHICAGO — Conrad Black will not take the stand to defend himself against fraud and racketeering charges, rejecting a final chance to speak as his lawyers wrapped their defence.

"I decline to exercise my right to testify,'' Black said Tuesday, standing ramrod straight as Judge Amy St. Eve offered the option as a legal formality.

Black was followed by his co-defendants -- former executives of the Hollinger newspaper empire -- Jack Boultbee, Peter Atkinson and Mark Kipnis, all of whom echoed Black in declining a chance to testify on their own behalf.

The statements brought to an end the evidentiary phase of the trial, as the defence rested after a scant two weeks of testimony.

Prosecutors took 10 weeks to lay out their case against Black, focusing on millions of dollars in non-compete payments they allege illegally flowed into the pockets of the accused.

Closing arguments are expected to begin June 18 with jury deliberations starting in the following week.

Black is facing charges of wire and mail fraud, tax evasion, racketeering and obstruction of justice. If convicted, he could face almost 100 years in prison.

A separate money laundering charge against Black was recently dropped.

Black's decision not to testify suggests his defence lawyers consider the prosecution's case against the former newspaper baron weak and believe he has a good chance of being acquitted.

But in past U.S. white collar crime trials, the failure of a defendant to testify -- the securities trading trial of Martha Stewart is one of the best examples -- has undermined the defence case and suggested the accused had something to hide.

"Whenever a defendant puts on an actual defence there's generally an expectation from the jury that they're going to hear from the defendant, and a lingering concern that they will wonder why he didn't testify,'' said Lee Dunst, a former U.S. federal prosecutor and partner with the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's in New York.

But "it's (also) a big risk and you're always rolling the dice by letting a defendant testify.''

Dunst said Black's lawyers built a lot of their case through aggressive cross-examination of the government's witnesses -- especially star witness David Radler -- and may have been weary of opening Black up to similarly aggressive questioning by prosecutors.

That choice may annoy some jurors, but in long criminal cases such as this one, if any one juror voices his or her displeasure, the others are likely to rein the person in.

"I've found jurors to be fair and serious about what they do and to listen very carefully to the judge's instructions,'' Dunst said. "I wouldn't expect the jury here to be very different.''

Earlier Tuesday, prosecutors argued that Hollinger International managers, Black among them, could have concealed the truth from a forensic accountant who reviewed the company's books and found no evidence of fraud.

Accountant and former FBI agent Alan Funk has testified he didn't find evidence of wrongdoing when he reviewed documents used in an audit of deals involving disputed non-compete payments by accounting firm KPMG.

And he has said Hollinger disclosed all payments to its external auditors and sought proper approvals.

But prosecutor Jeff Cramer suggested Funk could only rely on documents made available to him and suggested that Hollinger might not have given him everything he needed if the company's executives were in fact committing fraud.

"When top management wants to perpetuate a fraud, that's the toughest fraud to detect,'' Cramer asserted.

"Yes it is,'' Funk replied, saying top executives are the most able to override auditing controls.

"If auditors are given documents that are intentionally false, that would, in your opinion, be evidence of fraud?'' Cramer said.

"If all the relevant facts were not known to KPMG, then there could be an intent to defraud?''

"Hypothetically, yes,'' Funk replied, adding that there was too much disclosure by Hollinger in this case to suggest fraud.

Cramer also said that Funk, hired by lawyers for Black co-defendant Kipnis to review what Hollinger's auditors knew about non-compete payments at the heart of the prosecution's case, had thus far billed close to $800,000 for his review and was "still going.''

Black and three other Hollinger executives are charged with defrauding Hollinger International shareholders out of millions of dollars through the sale of newspaper assets.

Prosecutors say Black and two of his co-defendants, Boultbee and Atkinson, illegally diverted much of the money to themselves, with help from corporate counsel Kipnis.