Fraud @ WCOM

Discussion in 'Trading' started by Bachelier, Jun 25, 2002.

  1. js1257

    js1257

    Employees of the pentagon were charging everything on their pentagon credit cards. Going on spending sprees that they will not have to pay back. People for the dept of education did almost the same thing, they just stole money and were out buying 50 thousand dollar cars.
     
    #31     Jun 25, 2002
  2. mrktrend

    mrktrend

    I hope to see one of those CEO's be put in the jail soon. It's highly unlikely but I wish they pass some kind of new laws to make these criminals cough up their own bank account. It doesn't belong to them anyway... Maybe that'll teach people like Martha a lesson.
     
    #32     Jun 25, 2002
  3. puhleez. Everyone loved them when the market was going up 20% per year...as if that can't be done without smoke and mirrors.
     
    #33     Jun 25, 2002
  4. Josh_B

    Josh_B

    Well.. if you have enough $$$ and power, with enough "contributions" to your friendly congressmen you just about pass any law you want. That way, you can technically get away with any type of moral or ethical crime maybe even more. Not to mention that you can get the proper legal and accounting team together to assist the process afterwards.

    Josh
     
    #34     Jun 25, 2002
  5. js1257

    js1257

    In the enron scandal the last ceo's wife was being interviewed and was saying they were broke. Flat ass broke. A news team went around the town they live in and was showing all the real estate rental properties they own,only 10 million dollars worth. Now talk about broke.
     
    #35     Jun 25, 2002
  6. do you know how much the bank owns?
     
    #36     Jun 25, 2002
  7. Actually restitution is mandatory in fraud cases. FWIW
     
    #37     Jun 25, 2002
  8. that'll keep the lawyers bizzy for a while.
     
    #38     Jun 25, 2002
  9. It seems the US AG's are pushing the boundaries of the RICO Act, why don't they use it against these individuals and organizations?
     
    #39     Jun 26, 2002
  10. cause they only use it against people against whom the case isn't really clear.
     
    #40     Jun 26, 2002