Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 874 times:
Sorry to burst your bubble, VS, but the DoJ is planning on making this the rule rather than the exception. Look at Waksal, and the heads of Tyco and Adelphia. There was so much public outcry over corporate accountability that corporate execs really need to re-examine their business practices. She wouldn't have lied if she hadn't been aggressively pursued? I don't quite understand what you mean by this. She was a former broker, she knew the risks of getting caught with her hand in the cookie jar. If she had been up front with the SEC investigators and admitted to having a little inside info on the Imclone deal, she would have merely been fined. She lied because she was greedy, plain and simple. As for her age, I've seen people older than her sent to much worse prisons than she'll go to. Don't waste your tears on Martha, she got her just desserts.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Cancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 867 times:
just because she has loads of money does not mean she should not be punished. she screwed up, and got caught. she needs to face the consequences just like anyone else that made that mistake. the problem is that she'll probably get stuck in some beverly-hills wannabe prison. stick her in rikers or compton for better results!
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
VSLover From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1894 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 865 times:
HAHA, "she got her just desserts"
the thing is she never lied about having received any inside info on imclone--THAT would be insider trading, which she was never a party to, TECHNICALLY, which the government never had a case on. So they shifted to perjury, which she did about the situation re: calls received, orders placed, etc.
So really, imo, the government knew they had no case of insider trading (which they never did) but to clamp down on corpororate execs, they made her a great example for average americans (look at the comments by the one juror aftewards saying they sought to send a message to the average american). Thus, the govt went after her for lies about her involvement, which of course ultimate led to her demise.
but yes, greedy plain and simple. one of my parents was actually in the restaurant the night marthas company went public, and the story of her making them change a channel so she could hear the news about HERSELF is true.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 816 times:
If she had come clean with it when the FBI and SEC first asked her about it, she would have gotten away with a slap on the wrist, and a requirement to pay a fine (being a civil, not a criminal case). What made it a crime is lying about it to the authorities - shades of Clinton.
But after all the abuses of the 90's, the Justice Department is now ready and willing to throw the book at any corporate shenanigans, and rightfully so. It may take a while, but the former heads of Enron, Worldcom and others are going to jail, and Marth Stewart dug her own grave. The market economy depends on the integrity of the rule of law at all levels, and forcing executives to obey the law above all else will help the economy by increasing public confidence.