Ken Lay Indicted
 

For those of us who are following the saga of Enron, here is a link to the 65 page indictment against Ken Lay.

http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/enr...ay70704ind.pdf

I haven't read it yet, but plan to do so later today; then I'll post my thoughts about the charges.

Ummm... sixty-five pages, huh? I move that we let Wenchie be the official researcher on this project and give us a full report. :D

Enforcement like this is all well and good and does not reflect on capitalism in general or the alleged evil nature of all corporations, the rich, etc., etc.

I am looking forward to the read. It's in the typical double-spaced legal format, so really much shorter than the 65 pages indicates.

Just the same, your knowledge of this case is far more detailed than mine, so I'll defer to your thoughts on the subject. :)

I completely agree. Such fraud is the exception, not the rule - nor is it proof that capitalism is a flawed system.

i agree that this is not proof that capitalism is a failed system, but i think the recent corporate scandals should teach us not to under estimate the power of greed over humanity. corporations should be subject to limitations and regulations to keep such things in check.

Corporations already are subject to laws regarding fraud. What is needed is better enforcement.

I read the indictment last night. It is basically an update to the one filed against Skilling and Causey earlier this year. They are being charged together as conspirators. The charges against Lay portray him as a "protector" of the conspiracy, which was orchestrated by Fastow and Skilling.

In an unusual move, Lay has made a public statement blaming the fraud on Fastow. His attorneys are trying to get his trial severed from the others. I think the judge would be making a mistake to allow it.

65 pages. That's all they got on that ma'fucker?

If indicted on all counts, he could spend the rest of his life in jail. They have enough.

The real issue is whether Lay is guilty of bad management and judgement (which is not a crime) or of criminal intent to commit fraud. His lawyer is going to make a case for the former, which is why he wants to sever the trials.

Severing the trials is a smart move. However, I don't see how he could've not known about it.

Could he be found criminally negligent if it is found out he created an environment cunductive to fraud. Or in other words, if he didn't know because he didnt want to know, if he put effort in to not finding out would that be a crime?

I don't want to thread-jack this but for those interested in some of the new compliance regulation legislation there are some good overviews here: Sarbanes-Oxley

This site contains news and articles related to the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002. This was a legislative attempt to bring about real changes in corporate governance and regulatory compliance through criminalizing reporting and/or internal control failures. Everyone involved in corporate malfeasance the likes of Enron and Worldcomm or even smaller scale incidents is now subject to heavy fines and prison terms. Whether or not anyone will serve a sentence under this is a different story (we need to build more prisons -- a total story for another thread) but it is now criminally punishable across the board.

Sarbanes-Oxley is a dirty word to me. We have new changes coming down the pipes at work every day. I have had to do more flow charts on how I do my assorted duties than I care to think about.

I asked my boss the other day if I should do one on how I go to the bathroom

S-O, like many a piece of legislation, is well intentioned but misplaced. The result is that honest companies are now bearing enormous expense in compliance and reporting. It would have been far more effective to significantly increase the criminal penalties for fraud. Instead, we are penalzing the innocent.

Once again, the accountants and lawyers get richer.

You would have to do several:

- Number 1
- Number 2
- Both
- That time of the month

Quit sending lawyers to Congress then. ;)