- 2,144
- 31
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
Smartest & slickest crimes in the book, I Salute white collar crimes
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by Tony Montana
Smartest & slickest crimes in the book, I Salute white collar crimes
Originally Posted by whiterails
A few things about this sensationalized headline:
1) Paul Allen was an enabler, not the mastermind of the scheme. He simply went along with it. The man in charge, Lee B. Farkas, was sentenced to life in prison (25 years +), and is being fined upwards of 30 million dollars.
2) Regardless of the amount of money stolen, the homeless guy committed armed robbery, a serious felony. The fact that he didn't actually have a gun is inconsequential; when you commit a bank robbery under the pretense of being armed, the law comes down on you hard.
That is all.
Originally Posted by whiterails
A few things about this sensationalized headline:
1) Paul Allen was an enabler, not the mastermind of the scheme. He simply went along with it. The man in charge, Lee B. Farkas, was sentenced to life in prison (25 years +), and is being fined upwards of 30 million dollars.
2) Regardless of the amount of money stolen, the homeless guy committed armed robbery, a serious felony. The fact that he didn't actually have a gun is inconsequential; when you commit a bank robbery under the pretense of being armed, the law comes down on you hard.
That is all.
In the context of the fraud case alone, then Paul Allen's punishment seems fair enough. And I had no idea about how armed robberies are judged, just upfront it felt unfair to me. So whether or not he had a gun and regardless of how much money he was punished real hard. Thanks for putting it into perspective. Still OD though imo, esp when you have the other guy in the story I posted who robbed a bank for $1 and they want to give him a light sentence. All because he had no intentions of having a gun, versus the homeless man who pretended to have a gun.Originally Posted by whiterails
A few things about this sensationalized headline:
1) Paul Allen was an enabler, not the mastermind of the scheme. He simply went along with it. The man in charge, Lee B. Farkas, was sentenced to life in prison (25 years +), and is being fined upwards of 30 million dollars.
2) Regardless of the amount of money stolen, the homeless guy committed armed robbery, a serious felony. The fact that he didn't actually have a gun is inconsequential; when you commit a bank robbery under the pretense of being armed, the law comes down on you hard.
That is all.
In the context of the fraud case alone, then Paul Allen's punishment seems fair enough. And I had no idea about how armed robberies are judged, just upfront it felt unfair to me. So whether or not he had a gun and regardless of how much money he was punished real hard. Thanks for putting it into perspective. Still OD though imo, esp when you have the other guy in the story I posted who robbed a bank for $1 and they want to give him a light sentence. All because he had no intentions of having a gun, versus the homeless man who pretended to have a gun.Originally Posted by whiterails
A few things about this sensationalized headline:
1) Paul Allen was an enabler, not the mastermind of the scheme. He simply went along with it. The man in charge, Lee B. Farkas, was sentenced to life in prison (25 years +), and is being fined upwards of 30 million dollars.
2) Regardless of the amount of money stolen, the homeless guy committed armed robbery, a serious felony. The fact that he didn't actually have a gun is inconsequential; when you commit a bank robbery under the pretense of being armed, the law comes down on you hard.
That is all.
Originally Posted by VeryAnalytical85
I get where you're going with this.
In either case, both acts of crime aren't justified.
What else can I say, we live in the U.S.
Originally Posted by VeryAnalytical85
I get where you're going with this.
In either case, both acts of crime aren't justified.
What else can I say, we live in the U.S.
Originally Posted by namtsui
I never really considered white collar crimes to be so bad as in they aren't directly threatening people's lives. But this puts it into perspective for me. Because when you compare these 2 cases, the CEO did more fiscal damage and it's essentially a robbery. So it comes down to armed robbery where you directly threaten peoples lives vs. indirect fiscal damage, and it appears that the justice system considers violence to be worse than fraud. BUT, he didn't even have a gun.
So I conclude that 15 years is way too long given the circumstances, and this is a direct violation of the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Originally Posted by namtsui
I never really considered white collar crimes to be so bad as in they aren't directly threatening people's lives. But this puts it into perspective for me. Because when you compare these 2 cases, the CEO did more fiscal damage and it's essentially a robbery. So it comes down to armed robbery where you directly threaten peoples lives vs. indirect fiscal damage, and it appears that the justice system considers violence to be worse than fraud. BUT, he didn't even have a gun.
So I conclude that 15 years is way too long given the circumstances, and this is a direct violation of the constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
This should be posted in every one of these stupid threads like this.Originally Posted by whiterails
A few things about this sensationalized headline:
1) Paul Allen was an enabler, not the mastermind of the scheme. He simply went along with it. The man in charge, Lee B. Farkas, was sentenced to life in prison (25 years +), and is being fined upwards of 30 million dollars.
2) Regardless of the amount of money stolen, the homeless guy committed armed robbery, a serious felony. The fact that he didn't actually have a gun is inconsequential; when you commit a bank robbery under the pretense of being armed, the law comes down on you hard.
That is all.
This should be posted in every one of these stupid threads like this.Originally Posted by whiterails
A few things about this sensationalized headline:
1) Paul Allen was an enabler, not the mastermind of the scheme. He simply went along with it. The man in charge, Lee B. Farkas, was sentenced to life in prison (25 years +), and is being fined upwards of 30 million dollars.
2) Regardless of the amount of money stolen, the homeless guy committed armed robbery, a serious felony. The fact that he didn't actually have a gun is inconsequential; when you commit a bank robbery under the pretense of being armed, the law comes down on you hard.
That is all.