Today is day 925. - Page 2

JohnT · August 29, 2003, 01:03

Two companies have been destroyed, a number of people have been indicted ("charged" as you put it), one has been convicted, with more on the way, and 15,000 people who worked for a criminal enterprise are rightly and properly put out of work, with their punishment for their complicity coming in the forms of taking a big hit in the retirement fund.

Everybody involved is getting punished. Why are you complaining?

Spiffor · August 29, 2003, 01:17

I love how you claim that Enron employees are accomplices that have been properly punished. Obviously, thy knew all about Enron's scheme, and that's why they trusted the stocks / followed orders that long

Oerdin · August 29, 2003, 01:25

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Maybe it's just because he's a Canadian.

Partially, for some reason the Justice department went after Worldcom pretty fast. Maybe our Canadian friend just doesn't have as many friends in high office as Lay does?

Oerdin · August 29, 2003, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Everybody involved is getting punished. Why are you complaining?

Most of the rank and file didn't know what the upper brass were doing but they're the ones who paid most of the penalty. I don't like that but there's nothing I can do about it either. The thing that really irks me is Lay never had to pay back even 10% of his ill gotten gains and even that figure maybe reduced on appeal.

I don't see the disincentive to commiting crime. Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime and shouldn't he lose all the money he made and then some? I don't think it will happen but I think it would be nice.

JohnT · August 29, 2003, 01:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I love how you claim that Enron employees are accomplices that have been properly punished. Obviously, thy knew all about Enron's scheme, and that's why they trusted the stocks / followed orders that long

Well, if you unknowingly worked for a mafia Don and the mafia Don was put out of business, then...

It is irrelevant if they knew that they were selling smoke - the fact is, they were selling smoke and they needed to be stopped. Who whined for the secretaries and janitors of Drexel Burnham Lambert, of Prudential-Bache, of Soloman Brothers? Nobody. Why do Enron employees get the soft-hearted treatment when the others did not?

Oerdin · August 29, 2003, 01:40

Part of my big miff is that Eron REQUIRED 100% of all employee retirement funds to be in company stock.

Bush at least fixed that one (at least I think he did) so at least that abuse shouldn't prop up again.

Spiffor · August 29, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Who whined for the secretaries and janitors of Drexel Burnham Lambert, of Prudential-Bache, of Soloman Brothers? Nobody. Why do Enron employees get the soft-hearted treatment when the others did not?

1. Strawman. That's not because other cases didn't go under the spotlight that they were any less bad.

2. I may have whined for them if I knew what you are talking about. That's the first time I read these names.

HershOstropoler · August 29, 2003, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
As mentioned, the first to be convicted was former Enron executive Michael Kopper. Kopper worked closely with Andrew Fastow, the former chief financial officer, who has been indicted on 78 counts of conspiracy. In August 2002, Kopper was convicted to charges of money laundering and wire fraud. He had pled guilty to the charges.
[/q]

A plea with open sentencing. Has he been sentenced? If so, to what?

notyoueither · August 29, 2003, 03:36

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
It depends on what?

Spiffor · August 29, 2003, 03:56

NYE:
I think Hersh's point was that corporate fraud was more or less easy to investigate depending on the effort put into the investigation, and the formal rules of the investigation. His point, IIUC, was that the corrupt politicians were those who decided how much effort was put into the investigation, and are those who decide the rules.