It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Enron’s Skilling gets more than 10 years cut off sentence

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Well, it seems it's over. He gets a total of 10 years, with time served, so it makes 4 more years and he's out and free. The CEO during part of one of the largest financial scams and scandals in the history of the United States....and the judge feels sorry for poor Skilling. :shk:


The long-running battle between federal prosecutors and former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling formally came to an end Friday when U.S. District Judge Sim Lake signed off on a negotiated sentence agreement that will end Skilling's incarceration in about four years.

In agreeing to the minimum sentence within the range of 168 and 210 months, Lake said the interest of justice would not be served by having Skilling serve longer. He noted that the architect of Enron's rise from an obscure pipeline company to an innovative and diverse energy giant will end up spending more time in prison than anyone else connected to the company's stunning 2001 collapse into bankruptcy.


Personally, I found the original sentence to be light, considering whistle blowers outright named HIM as more responsible for what happened than even Kenneth Lay (The middle of this BBC Summary explains who's who). However, it can't even be allowed to stand for the original imposed sentence. This is why no one has faith in the Justice system. A conviction isn't REALLY a conviction if you are connected and/or have money. It's just something to deal with while the public fury dies down....then things will get adjusted.



"This is absolutely a resonable resolution," said attorney Philip Hilder, a onetime federal prosecutor who represented so-called Enron whistleblower Sheron Watkins, an accountant who became famous when her memo to Lay warning of the consequences of potential accounting scandals became public. "It frees up about $41 million and puts and end to the appeals. And Skilling will have served a significant amount of time."
Source

Reasonable by whose definition?! People were utterly destroyed and savings wiped out for normal folks as well as wealthy investors. The pain and reverberation his actions caused are hard to quantify. Then there is this......

All US Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences as of 2013

Take a look at some of what gets 10 years or more. Don't post about the first section, please, although it's important to SEE for comparison. Other areas are equally compelling. People lose their entire life or good parts of it to prison over FAR less damage than this man did. He just did it in "White Collar" crime, so that's supposed to somehow make it less important. As far as I'm concerned, corporate corruption is so rarely caught, it should never be excused or penalties reduced when it actually IS proven outright.

The original sentence was close to justice. This is a pathetic travesty of it.....and the Judge as well as at least one Prosecutor thinks it was a good day's work. How obscene. I'm a supporter of our court system as a whole. There ARE bad apples in it though, and in my opinion, this Judge is among those that give a bad taste to the whole barrel.


(There are people doing LIFE in some states under multiple offender laws who did petty garbage. Their entire lives ..gone. They may deserve it too. I don't know. I believe this man DID deserve to spend his days incarcerated. At least serve what was originally imposed.)




posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
JUSTICE SYSTEM: Working as intended. *trollface*



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Dear Wrabbit2000,

Thanks for the thread. I'm happy to be reminded that corporate criminals can be tried and jailed for their wrong doings. It holds out a little hope. I am surprised that Justice doesn't seem to be making any big corporate cases like this one. Enron was 2006.

Might I add a little more from your source?

Appellate reversals of part of the government's case against Skilling, as well as one of grounds used by Lake in setting the original sentence of 24 years, meant that Skilling already was entitled to a reduced sentence. The agreement knocked about 20 months off the lower end of the revised sentence range, in exchange for which Skilling agreed to forgo any further appeals.

That finality, which brings the Enron saga to a close, frees up about $40 million in Skilling's assets to be divided among investors, protects the government from the possibility of more appeals reversals and assures Skilling of at least the possibility of having an extended period of time as a free man before he dies.


It seems a little less horrendous when these factors are considered.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I'm not sure how you see their reasoning as compelling. We could save a few billion by just letting the violent criminals out of prison too. All those pesky appeals they file and all. It gets expensive! Then, we could save even more by just not having prisons at all. Yes, indeed... Why incarcerate anyone? It's expensive, time consuming (no pun intended) and a hassle all around.

See, their rationalizations for a dramatic cut to the sentence of one of the single worst white collar criminals in the history of the United States (No joke...Enron puts him near #1 for all time records to date) is just that. Rationalizing. They HAD to convict him of something. There were plenty of people looking to shoot this bastard for what he'd done and the countless lives he ruined. It wasn't just a typical scam that hit individual people who chose to be a part of it. Enron reverberated and raped across pensions and retirement funds as well. As it was a key player in the national energy markets, it was a key pat of energy funds and mutual funds those things invest in to remain productive. He direct impacted that across the line. His actions....hurt real and innocent people, badly.

$40 million? They should make him eat it. That's pennies to ripped off dollars and while in some cases, may justify consideration? In this case? It's like making a deal with a bank robber to return to loot, then telling the public 'Well......we recovered $1,000! That IS money! The deal was worth it, really!'.
edit on 22-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
This is how justice works in a land where the government is a front for the corporate plutocracy that rules in broad daylight.

If you or I defrauded or swindled on the level of this piece of trash, we would be put under the jail.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Dear Wrabbit2000,

I really miscommunicated this time! I simply said that those factors made the decision a little less horrendous. I didn't see anything that led me to believe the final sentence was compelled by any argument. Everybody agrees he needs jail time, and even under this deal he's getting, what, 10-13 years?

The money aspect doesn't seem too important to me. The question is, who is going to get the money, his lawyers for work on his appeals, or the victims? But as I said, that's not too big for me. You're completely correct that "buying" your way out of jail is an ugly idea. However, prosecutors do it all the time in plea bargains. Cooperate and you'll get less time. In cases like that, offenders are buying their way out of jail, just not with money.

What I did notice was that some of his conviction had already been overturned, as had parts of his original sentencing decision. He was going to get a shorter sentence, there wasn't any way around that. The only question was how much his sentence would be reduced by.

Maybe the prosecutor made a bad deal, maybe he didn't, I don't know. Was he influenced by his bosses in the Department of Justice, or the corporate "Powers that Be?" Got me.

Now this is just a guess, and I have no evidence to back it up, nor do I mean it personally to anyone. Is it possible that the uproar over this sentence is because it's a corporate crime, and corporations, with good reason, are villified more than other criminals?

With respect,
Charles1952




top topics
 
2

log in

join