/b/

Infinitii · Post by **Infinitii** » Tue May 22, 2012 11:51 am

^-80% sure fake

Post by **Barcode** » Tue May 22, 2012 11:56 am

vsps7 wrote:^-80% sure fake

Lol, it sounds pretty likely to be honest. someone powerful steals more gets less, someone "non-powerful" steals little gets double the punishment. Welcome to our corrupt the world

Aphex · Post by **Aphex** » Tue May 22, 2012 12:43 pm

l3arcode wrote:
vsps7 wrote:^-80% sure fake
Lol, it sounds pretty likely to be honest. someone powerful steals more gets less, someone "non-powerful" steals little gets double the punishment. Welcome to our corrupt the world

I think its real also. I know someone who got fined £75 for throwing their cigarette end on the floor, and someone who beat some girl up in the news paper got like a £50 fine lol

Infinitii · Post by **Infinitii** » Tue May 22, 2012 4:55 pm

I'm sorry, I was wrong. But the comparison isn't exactly fair, as we don't know all the details of the fraud thingy. This gives more info on fraud thingy
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/roybrown.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aphex · Post by **Aphex** » Tue May 22, 2012 6:51 pm

Still. Massive company whos only ambition is greed, get off lightly for stealing money. Homeless guy who is just trying to get food and shelter (2 basic necessities any human strives for) gets very big sentence.

I don't see how that webpage changes anything.

Infinitii · Post by **Infinitii** » Tue May 22, 2012 7:02 pm

The thing that happened to the homeless guy was unacceptable, yes, but it's wrong to compare with the CEO guy. Take a look at this.

Snopes.com wrote:In June 2011, Paul R. Allen, the former CEO Taylor, Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corp. was sentenced to 40 months in prison for his part in aiding and abetting the efforts of TBW's former chairman, Farkas, to defraud the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)...

...Mitigating factors in Allen's sentencing were the fact that the fraud was already underway when he became CEO of TBW in 2003, that his crime was a non-violent one, and that Allen was one of six persons who received credit on their sentences for cooperating with investigators and testifying against Farkas, the mastermind of the fraud scheme. (Farkas himself was sentenced to thirty years in prison.)

They did not get off lightly, the CEO just helped while it was already going on before he was CEO, but the real starter of this, a man name Farkas, got 30 years. We don't know about the CEO. Maybe he found himself trapped in all this hoax, maybe he was almost forced to do it. I do know it's wrong, but I feel 40 months is somewhat justice enough seeing the circumstances.

Aphex · Post by **Aphex** » Tue May 22, 2012 7:40 pm

I can see the point your making, I just hold a different opinion.

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Tue May 22, 2012 8:07 pm

You should actually learn what aiding and abetting means.

Infinitii · Post by **Infinitii** » Tue May 22, 2012 11:24 pm

Sorry but I can't take you for serious Penguin because I noticed you have a tendency to troll a lot.

However if you're actually serious, I thought that aiding and abetting meant to assist with someone in a crime in any way while knowing so, and to not try and put a stop to it.

I'm not too familiar with justice systems, but I believe those charged with aiding and abetting are charged the same as the guy who actually did it, I think. But in this case it was already going on, so I guess it didn't apply to him.

Please do mistake me if I'm wrong, and sorry if i am

Penguin · Post by **Penguin** » Wed May 23, 2012 12:05 am

vsps7 wrote:Sorry but I can't take you for serious Penguin because I noticed you have a tendency to troll a lot.

However if you're actually serious, I thought that aiding and abetting meant to assist with someone in a crime in any way while knowing so, and to not try and put a stop to it.

I'm not too familiar with justice systems, but I believe those charged with aiding and abetting are charged the same as the guy who actually did it, I think. But in this case it was already going on, so I guess it didn't apply to him.

Please do mistake me if I'm wrong, and sorry if i am

They did not get off lightly, the CEO just helped while it was already going on before he was CEO

No I was being serious this time :)

Of course it applies, you could be charged with aiding and abetting for a crime 25 years old. As long as you are aware of the activities (it does not matter when you become aware) and then you help, you are guilty.

Regardless of if it was going on before he was CEO, he should have immediately told someone in the company/authorities the second he became aware of the illegal activities and definitely should not have helped them in anyway shape or form after he became aware.

For example, if you kill someone 5 years ago, and tell me about it, and I help you to hide the body in a better place, that is still aiding and abetting, even if I was not there/aware of your activities when you killed him.

In Canada aiding and abetting does actually carry the same sentence as the crime it is linked with, I believe.

Anyway white collar crime is very rarely taken as seriously as it should be, hence the short sentence.

GazettE · Post by **GazettE** » Wed May 23, 2012 8:35 am

Infinitii · Post by **Infinitii** » Wed May 23, 2012 9:38 am

Penguin wrote:
vsps7 wrote:Sorry but I can't take you for serious Penguin because I noticed you have a tendency to troll a lot.

However if you're actually serious, I thought that aiding and abetting meant to assist with someone in a crime in any way while knowing so, and to not try and put a stop to it.

I'm not too familiar with justice systems, but I believe those charged with aiding and abetting are charged the same as the guy who actually did it, I think. But in this case it was already going on, so I guess it didn't apply to him.

Please do mistake me if I'm wrong, and sorry if i am

They did not get off lightly, the CEO just helped while it was already going on before he was CEO
No I was being serious this time :)

Of course it applies, you could be charged with aiding and abetting for a crime 25 years old. As long as you are aware of the activities (it does not matter when you become aware) and then you help, you are guilty.

Regardless of if it was going on before he was CEO, he should have immediately told someone in the company/authorities the second he became aware of the illegal activities and definitely should not have helped them in anyway shape or form after he became aware.

For example, if you kill someone 5 years ago, and tell me about it, and I help you to hide the body in a better place, that is still aiding and abetting, even if I was not there/aware of your activities when you killed him.

In Canada aiding and abetting does actually carry the same sentence as the crime it is linked with, I believe.

Anyway white collar crime is very rarely taken as seriously as it should be, hence the short sentence.

Wow you really know your stuff, kudos to that, or it was wikipedia. But either way nice

The point I'm trying to make was, the website itself said that it was a mitigating factor the fact that it already was under way, which must mean that that's partly why he didn't get the same 30 years as Farkas. Perhaps time does make a difference, even if not a big one. But I also missed out on a few other details that made a difference, such as his co-operation with the investigators.

Anyway here are a few pics :D

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote

Re: /b/

Quote