home

Another WorldCom Sentence

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:33:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers was sentenced to a highly publicized 25 years, but Ebbers didn’t act alone. As usual, those who played the government’s game by agreeing to assist its prosecution of Ebbers did much better.

Last week, Betty Vinson, a former WorldCom accounting official who said she pulled some numbers "out of the air" when she helped fudge company books, was sentenced to five months in prison. Another former accounting official, Troy Normand, was sentenced to three years of probation after a federal prosecutor said his role in the fraud was less than Vinson's.

Today, Buford "Buddy" Yates, the former director of general accounting, was sentenced to a year and a day. Although the judge called Yates “perhaps the least useful” of all the cooperators, she nonetheless rewarded him with a sentence that seems insignificant in comparison to the sentence imposed on Ebbers.

Is Ebbers really 25 times more culpable than WorldCom’s director of general accounting? As TalkLeft suggested here, a quarter century “is a ridiculous sentence for a non-violent crime.” That fact becomes even more obvious as the other actors in the WorldCom scheme are sentenced.

< Specter: CJ Rehnquist Is a Judicial Activist | Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Another WorldCom Sentence | 6 comments (6 topical)
    Re: Another WorldCom Sentence (none / 0) (#1)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Ebbers will never do 25 years and he made a deal to say nothing and become the new scapegoat, its the way our non government works.

    Re: Another WorldCom Sentence (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    I agree that those equally responsible should receive harsher terms. But as I have stated before, Worldcom and Enron ruined more lives than any 7/11 bandit or especially any pot dealer. Serious white collar crimes should receive harsher sentences than others because they ruin more lives and harsher sentences would actually be a deterrent. IF Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky knew they would get 20 to life would they have taken a chance on their criminal enterprises?

    Re: Another WorldCom Sentence (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    The argument that white collar criminals should not receive long jail sentences because they are non-violent criminals is bunk. These crimes have victims. Some of the victims are harmed in devastating ways. Ask Enron employees and shareholders who lost their retrement savings. Ask Tyco employees and shareholders. Beyond these individuals from whom wealth is stolen, white collar crooks who fleece shareholders also destroy the trust and integrity of our equity markets and the use of the equity markets to finance our retirements. If Ebbers or Kozlowski brandished guns in the commission of their criminal acts to swindle shareholders of their equity interest, would you then argue 25 years is just about right?

    Re: Another WorldCom Sentence (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    in my professional opinion (cpa), any member of the professional accounting staff, of any company, that helps process transactions which they know, or should know, are in violation of generally accepted accounting principals, to the detriment of any parties at interest, should be tried and sentenced just as they would be if they held you up with a gun in your face. they've done worse: they violated the code of ethics and put a black mark on the integrity of the entire profession. i have no sympathy, none. for those who defend them by saying that, well, had they not done so, they might have lost their jobs, so what? when one enters a profession, especially at the higher levels, there are rewards and responsibilities: you can't have one without accepting the other. you always know that there is a possibility you might have to put yourself at risk, in order to do the right thing. these people clearly had no true concept of what the term "professional" actually implies. at least, with a gun in your face, you know immediately you've been robbed, you don't have to wait until you're about to retire, to discover your life savings have been absconded with.

    Re: Another WorldCom Sentence (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    I can't agree with the notion that 'violent' and 'non-violent' characterizations should determine appropriate sentencing. I'm sure convicted spy John Walker would agree, but I don't.

    Re: Another WorldCom Sentence (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    I agree, differenriating sentences by classifications is not overly bright. Crime and punnishment has never been easy. Ultimately you end up giving some 24 y.o. college student 10 years for a few hits of acid. The ones doing the prosecution may have in fact done the exact same thing.

    Another WorldCom Sentence | 6 comments (6 topical)