Enron boss gets 24 years
darkcrow
Posts: 1,102
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6079042.stm
Enron boss gets 24-year sentence
Former Enron boss Jeffrey Skilling has been sentenced to 24 years for his role in the giant fraud that led to the energy firm's 2001 collapse.
In May he had been found guilty on 19 counts including fraud, conspiracy and insider trading, and was told he could expect 20 to 30 years in prison.
The former chief executive of the US energy giant was convicted together with Enron's ex-chairman Kenneth Lay.
Mr Lay has since died and his convictions have been quashed.
This is because Mr Lay, who died of a heart attack in July, passed away before he was able to appeal against the verdict.
The scandal at the one-time energy giant left 21,000 people out of work, and shook corporate America, when the firm went bankrupt in 2001 with debts of $31.8bn (£18bn).
Remorse
Skilling was found to have orchestrated a series of loss-making deals and financial schemes to try to hide debts from investors.
You should be ashamed
Ann Beliveaux,
Former Enron employee
"Crimes of this magnitude deserve severe punishment," US District Court Judge Sim Lake told Skilling before sentencing him to 24 years and four months in jail.
"In terms of remorse your honour, I can't imagine more remorse," Skilling told the court before he was sentenced.
"That being said your honour, I am innocent of these charges."
Before sentencing Skilling was made to listen to testimony from a number of victims of the Enron fraud.
"You should be ashamed," said Ann Beliveaux, an employee who lost her entire retirement savings.
"When things got bad, you jumped ship."
Skilling has said he will appeal against his conviction.
The judge confined him to his home where he is to wear an ankle monitor until he reports to prison.
END
Enron boss gets 24-year sentence
Former Enron boss Jeffrey Skilling has been sentenced to 24 years for his role in the giant fraud that led to the energy firm's 2001 collapse.
In May he had been found guilty on 19 counts including fraud, conspiracy and insider trading, and was told he could expect 20 to 30 years in prison.
The former chief executive of the US energy giant was convicted together with Enron's ex-chairman Kenneth Lay.
Mr Lay has since died and his convictions have been quashed.
This is because Mr Lay, who died of a heart attack in July, passed away before he was able to appeal against the verdict.
The scandal at the one-time energy giant left 21,000 people out of work, and shook corporate America, when the firm went bankrupt in 2001 with debts of $31.8bn (£18bn).
Remorse
Skilling was found to have orchestrated a series of loss-making deals and financial schemes to try to hide debts from investors.
You should be ashamed
Ann Beliveaux,
Former Enron employee
"Crimes of this magnitude deserve severe punishment," US District Court Judge Sim Lake told Skilling before sentencing him to 24 years and four months in jail.
"In terms of remorse your honour, I can't imagine more remorse," Skilling told the court before he was sentenced.
"That being said your honour, I am innocent of these charges."
Before sentencing Skilling was made to listen to testimony from a number of victims of the Enron fraud.
"You should be ashamed," said Ann Beliveaux, an employee who lost her entire retirement savings.
"When things got bad, you jumped ship."
Skilling has said he will appeal against his conviction.
The judge confined him to his home where he is to wear an ankle monitor until he reports to prison.
END
DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
In no way do I feel sorry for this man, or Ken Lay.
Is Jeff Skilling a threat to society? No.
It says much about us that we would lock this man up.
They're a menace to society and possibly the worst kind.
he has ruined thousands of families lives... they demand justice. society demands justice.. he must be made an example of so that fat cats know they cannot get away with it. white collar crime is a serious business
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
The laws Skilling broke were paperwork laws. His 24 year sentence exceeds that of many child molestors and murderers.
Can you please tell me who Skilling "screwed" and what specifically he screwed them out of?
And that obviously stopped Jeff Skilling, huh?
If you think the man who runs a bullshit company and dupes you into investing into it is the "worst kind" of menace, I'm not sure what to say to you.
Revenge is a pretty shitty thing to build a justice system on.
♪♫♪♫♫
There is definately a deterrent factor here. Just because it did not stop Jeff Skilling does not mean that it did not stop hundreds of other people with the opportunity to do what he did.
So let's get this straight. The threat of prison did not stopp Skilling, so there should be no punishment for this. Skilling should go free. Next time he does the same thing, he should go free again and why? Becasue the deterrent will not work on the very man we are prosecuting.
Now if you are saying that 24 years is too long, that's a discussion worth having. Willie Aikens got 20 years for selling 2 ounces of crack to an undercover cop. So your point is taken--there are some crimes where you say "shit, he'd have been better off killing someone."
The justice of the situation is that Jeff Skilling's actions ruined his own life. Justice has already been served.
You locking him up is revenge, not justice.
Can you tell me who it stopped?
Let me ask you this: if there is a "next time", would you have any sympathy for the fool "victim" who put his or her trust in Skilling?
24 years is too long, yes.
California ratepayers too.
I'm curious, where did those jobs and pensions come from?
Yep.
No I cannot tell you who it stopped. Murderers and child molesters get long prison sentences. Can you tell me who that stopped?
Next time I would feel for the victims because they cannot know everything about every scumbag that works in a huge company like Enron. I don't think anyone would hire Skilling again anyway. It is not the victims fault. Ann Coulter blamed the first group of victims. And you'd blame the second.
http://wgntv.trb.com/news/local/wgntv-skilling-tombio,0,1371907.story
No, I can't. That's why I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that long prison sentences for murderers and child molestors are justified because they stop other murderers or child molestors.
To be a victim is to lose something. I'm curious, what did these victims lose?
First off, you don't have to lose somthing. If someone jumps you and beats the hell out of you, what do you lose? Does it only "count" if you incur medical expenses.
As to what they lost, I'll provide you an example out of the story: "'You should be ashamed,' said Ann Beliveaux, an employee who lost her entire retirement savings."
In that case you lose your well-being.
Wait. You're suggesting that the actions of Jeff Skilling caused Ann to lose her retirement savings? Let me ask you this: where did those retirement savings come from in the first place?
Because of their finagling, that pension plan became valueless. Thus, through Skilling's deception and criminal conduct, Enron failed to live up to its side of the bargain.
You're all about freedom of contract. This is a very clear case of Enron's failing to live up to its contract with its employees and its shareholders. So why not punish the chief architect for his role in it?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
First, get your facts straight. Enron did not force anyone to invest in Enron stock.
Secondly, let's assume that Ann worked hard. Hard work cannot give you a retirement package (at least in the form of money). Money must come from someone else, someone who finds value in your hard work. The money Ann "lost" came from those same defrauded investors, California energy customers, etc. So perhaps Ann should be spending 24 years in prison too.
That "bargain" made absolutely no guarantees to Ann short of being paid a paycheck. Was Ann not given a paycheck?
I am all about freedom of contract. Can you show me which terms of which contract Enron violated?
Wow. I admit it. I was wrong. Those that make it to the top are the ones who make the world go around. If you are a worker bee, you are there because of your relative lazyness and lack of direction. If your employer, the big wigs from which really earned the money, decides, at its own discretion to not give you the pension that was part of your employment agreement--tough shit. It's theirs anyway. You should have worked harder throughout life. Then YOU could have been the one taking back the pension that someone else stupidly thought THEY had earned.
There are haves and have-nots, but the gap between them is too small. It's not right. The gap must grow.
Edit: Most importantly, you should not expect the caretaker of your retirement package to do legal things with the money. It is his to play with, regardless of law.
Not sure where you're getting this stuff from. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that Ann's money came from exactly the same place that Jeff Skilling's money came from. Everything she had to lose was only hers to lose because of Jeff Skilling's (and others') fraudulent actions.
Without that fraud, Enron was nothing. A house of cards is worth no more than the cards. Ann's disappointment and anger cannot change that fact.
Why?
Enron was not the caretaker of Ann's retirement package. Enron was simply an organization in which Ann invested.
Enron forced people to invest their pension plans in Enron stock. And then, during critical periods, Enron stopped employees from trading their Enron stock. So while Skilling and Lay were getting out, they were forcing the regular employees to keep the stock, whose value was declining rapidly.
http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2003/06/23/daily39.html
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Read your own article. First, this article details a charge, not a conviction. Just because the Labor Department sues someone does not mean that someone is guilty. Secondly, the claim is not that they forced them, it's that they "failed to consider the prudence of Enron stock as an appropriate investment for the retirement plans". Basically they charge says "since Enron went bust, Enron shouldn't have encouraged people to invest in Enron".
No one was forced to invest in Enron. The "preventing people from getting out" you mention is a standard 401k practice that every single participant agreed to when they signed up for the program. A 401k is not a gauranteed vehicle.
Was Enron unethical for aggressively advising people to invest 401k money in Enron? Yes. Is Enron alone in this? No. Are any of these others being sued? No.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Are you aware of what led to the creation of the SEC? After the great depression, people were afraid to invest their money in public securities. This lack of investor confidence was dangerous to the stability of the economy.
The government had to guarantee to the public that they would make sure that publicly held companies would be honest about their earnings and put investor priorities before their own.
That's where a CEO comes in. The CEO does not own the company. The investors own the company. The investors appoint a CEO to run the company in a manner that puts investor interests before his own.
Therefore, the CEO and his upper-echelon executives have a legal obligation to fairly and accurately report all financial activities within the organization.
They failed to do this. Instead, they said everything cool while the whole company was going under. They failed to do their job of putting investor interests before their, and of fairly and accurately reporting the company's financial activities.
Stuff like that is what led to the creation of the SEC. Without strict regulation promising strict penalties for those who violate it, the whole entire economy is at risk of plummeting into another depression as a result of a lack of investor confidence.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
Certainly. Are you aware of what led to the Spanish Inquisition?
Why? Why did the government have to do this?
So then why do the investors blame anyone but themselves when the CEO they appoint is a joke?
"Therefore"????? The legal "obligation" you speak of comes from the threat of force by the government. Nothing more.
If the investors want their CEO to have a true obligation to "fairly and accurately report all financial activities", they need not resort to government. As you aptly stated, investors own the company. Therefore, they have the power to put mechanisms in place within the organization to ensure that such reporting happens and happens correctly.
They did do this. Certainly. They were able to do this because the "obligation" you speak of above in fact does not exist. Enron was structured in such a way such that the upper-echelon was given all the power and all the say and was motivated by the ownership community to increase returns at all cost. They abused that power, but no one cared since everyone was getting rich. Unfortunately, when justice was served on Enron by the market, suddenly the investment community that hired those people became "victims".
This is not to suggest that Lay, Skilling et all are the actual victims. They are not. They certainly actively participated in these crimes and much of the blame falls on them. In fact, the vast majority of the blame for Enron's collapse should fall on them. But Enron's collapse and the loss of billions for investors are two different things. And if you or anyone else lost money as an owner of Enron, much of the blame for that falls not on Skilling et al but on you.
I completely agree. Without the SEC our economy would be much more volitaile than it is now. I just don't see why that is, by default, a good thing.