A Brief Article on Corporate Execucrime, Fraud and Theft

In the ‘bad old days’ (before motor vehicles), if a gang of robbers held up a bank, a train or stagecoach, then their actions were considered to be illegal and criminal in nature, according to the laws in most jurisdictions.

 If, however, the laws relating to these crimes had been written in such a form as to specify that only those who took money that was not their own, ‘from banks, or trains or stagecoaches’ were committing criminal activities, then what happened when motor vehicles such as cars and trucks came onto the scene?

 Common sense would dictate that taking what is ‘not yours’ from others, while at the same time depriving those same others of 'what is rightly theirs’, should be considered, at the least, immoral, unethical and wrong. However, unless the laws of the land are written to include all such activities as illegal and therefore criminal (i.e., regardless of where what was taken had been taken), then taking items such as bags of money without permission or authorization  from ‘motor vehicles’ (i.e., not only 'banks, trains or stagecoaches), would not be illegal, regardless of how immoral, unethical or wrong such an activity might be. In regard to such cases, therefore, the law would clearly have a very large loophole, and one could continue to take money from ‘motor vehicles’ without concern about any retribution.

 The case could likewise be made that when people such as CEOs and CFOs of corporations deliberately mislead, misinform, or deceive others such as current and prospective shareholders (perhaps by putting out, through their accountants,  inappropriate revenue figures or other accounting irregularities) in order to promote these other individuals keeping and/or putting money into the company, while at the same time the same CEOs, CFOs or other executives 'in the know' were busily withdrawing funds for themselves (through cashing in  their stock options, selling shares, or granting themselves or one another ‘loans’) just before major bad news (such as non-effective product research findings, poor sales figures or misleading accounting figures) becomes common knowledge, then these CEOs, CFOs and other executives such as members of the Boards of Directors, should surely be held legally accountable by substantial and inclusive laws and regulations, and their actions should lead to appropriately severe consequences, including the requirement to make restitution, and not profit from their ill-gotten gains.

 And, it could also be argued, especially in states that have passed three-strikes laws (where an individual who may have shoplifted $10. worth of merchandise on three separate occasions, and has been found guilty on these three separate occasions, can be jailed for 25 years to life), surely, then, when an executive has made off with millions of dollars by practices such as those mentioned above, that individual may deserve the possibility or even likelihood of serving a great deal of time in  prison, even if it is the person’s first offense.

In cases of premeditated murder, the fact that it is the murderer’s first offence does not preclude him or her spending many years in prison, or worse.  In cases where a business executive’s deliberate actions have resulted in perhaps millions of shareholders losing billions of dollars while the offending executive has at the same time accumulated,  perhaps, hundreds of millions of dollars for himself or herself, then this individual’s actions should perhaps likewise cost him or her dearly, including conceivably, all of the ill-gotten gains plus fines plus serious jail time. 

In my nearly three decades of clinical investigations of Atypical Theft Offenders and Typical Theft Offenders, the differences are very noticeable. To the extent that ...

then, to the extent that the above-named factors are present, the probability is greater that the individual should be regarded as a common criminal.

In the nearly three decades during which I have carried out clinical assessment and treatment with individuals who have been charged with theft, whether of a few dollars or six figures or more, it has often seemed that, in relative terms, the greater the monetary value of that which was taken, the less the punishment. In other words, some individuals who have stolen millions have received very little, if any, jail time, while others, who have stolen items worth a very few dollars, have frequently been jailed for many months, years, or even lifetimes. Surely there is something very wrong with a legal system that allows this sort of inequitable situation to continue! Yet the likelihood of change would seem to be very slight, indeed, especially if and as the persons who have taken millions have also been major contributors to the campaigns of the lawmakers whose job it should be to develop laws and punishments that fit the kinds of misdeeds that have taken place. 

It would likely take a groundswell of conscientious and committed individuals, legal minds and public advocacy groups to apply enough pressure to force lawmakers to correct the injustices that have been and may be perpetrated upon ordinary citizens in regard to acts of deceit and theft. Currently in the United States some lawmakers and justice-oriented groups appear to be attempting to push for such reform. At the same time it is reported that there are others in influential positions who may continue to attempt to prevent such needed and fair reform from taking place.

 Perhaps it is up to you, the reader, to take a position on this matter, even as you may be watching your retirement fund or life savings dwindle. Be assured, those who have perpetrated the questionable actions that have contributed to your situation are barely noticing your situation. And possibly, could not care less! It really is up to all of us to act to remedy the situation.