Washington – U.S. Panel Proposes Changes To White-Collar Prison Sentences

    5

    FILE - Lead attorney for former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling (L), Daniel Petrocelli (R) speaks to reporters outside federal court following jury selection in the Enron trial in Houston January 30, 2006. ReutersWashington – Some executives and others convicted of stock fraud could face shorter prison terms under a U.S. commission’s proposal to change how white-collar criminals are sentenced.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    The U.S. Sentencing Commission on Friday released proposals to amend advisory federal guidelines that would shift the emphasis in calculating a sentence for frauds on the market to financial gains instead of investor losses.

    The proposal follows years of criticism by defense lawyers and some judges who say that the guidelines focus too much on financial losses caused by fraud, leading in certain cases to sentences that are too harsh. Judges have discretion to impose any sentence, but are required to consider the guidelines.

    In stock fraud cases, losses can be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, contributing to an advisory sentence of life in prison.

    Under the commission’s proposal, judges in these cases would consider the gains from a fraud, a number defense lawyers say would often be considerably smaller.

    The Sentencing Commission has scheduled a March 12 hearing on the proposals. The panel has until May 1 to submit any amendments to Congress. If Congress does not act by Nov. 1, the changes become law.

    Notable securities fraud defendants include former Enron Corp Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling, who in 2013 had his prison sentence reduced by 10 years to 14 years following appeals, and former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers, who in 2005 was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

    The commission has proposed setting a threshold sentencing level for gains, ensuring punishment in cases where profits are minimal.

    Depending on what floor is set, there is a “very good chance a number of cases would result in lower guideline sentencing ranges,” said David Debold, a lawyer at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who heads up an advisory group to the commission.

    Defense lawyers cautioned that the proposed changes would not always result in a lower sentencing range. Some frauds like penny stock manipulation, for example, could involve significant gains to defendants and might still lead to lengthy sentences.

    Other proposals would affect the weight given to factors such as the harm to victims and the sophistication of a fraud.

    Some defense lawyers say the proposals overall do not sufficiently emphasize a defendant’s culpability and leaves loss as a driving factor for the bulk of fraud cases involving identity theft, mortgage fraud and healthcare fraud.

    “These changes don’t go nearly as far as we would have liked,” James Felman, a Florida lawyer and member of an American Bar Association task force advocating changes to the guidelines.

    U.S. District Judge Patti Saris, the commission’s chair, said in a statement that the panel did not consider “the guideline to be broken for most forms of fraud,” but that its review had identified “some problem areas where changes may be necessary.”


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    5 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    misslydia128
    misslydia128
    9 years ago

    This is terrible. They should be held accountable for the damage they caused, just like doctors in malpractice cases.

    yankie
    yankie
    9 years ago

    What a bunch of garbage. the lawyers and judges and those that are pushing for this should rot.

    Realistic
    Realistic
    9 years ago

    Of all the problems in the federal guidelines, they picked to help the “rich guys”.

    I am for reform, sentences are too harsh. But maybe start with the unbelievable long sentences for some stupid drugs.

    Why shouldn’t the guidelines consider the effects on the victims? isn’t this how it works with everyone? One murder would land you more years than 10 robberies, even though the murder didn’t necessarily gain you that much, since the effects on the victim are factored in.

    Why shouldn’t it be the same when it comes to the rich guys?

    lazerx
    lazerx
    9 years ago

    By the American government, murder and rape mean a few years behind bars, robbery means only a year or two, but swindle get time according to the amount. The more you swindle the more time.

    Plus it depends on who you swindle. If it is slobs, it is not so bad. If you swindle rich people you get more time. But if you swindle the government, you will never get out!

    In America, justice is blind.

    9 years ago

    States across the country are reconsidering jail time for low level drug offenders and the like. I think its time to reconsider white collar criminals as well. Take Madoff for example, he was named and shamed, disowned by his family etc.. His life is ruined. He will never get back into investments even if let free. Why should our tax dollars fund his prison senetence. What gain do we have for it. Let him go. And yes we can let rubashkin go too. We should add tougher monetary restrictions and requirements.