Kansas Lawyer Steals $52.5 million gets three years in Prision

I saw this just come across the web on CBS Money Watch.  Looks like a Lawyer in  Leawood Kansas is looking at doing 3 years for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud.  After reading a few comment in the article I kind of have to agree with some of the statements.  I am usually one for being a little easier on people that have been convicted of a crime, but this seems like a light sentence in my opinion. (and that's coming from a criminal defense lawyer)

Someone pointed out that you get a far worse punishment for armed robbery than this person is going to get for stealing over $50 million dollars.  That doesn't seem to make much since to me, but it also doesn't make much sense how you can expunge a armed robbery after five years but you have to wait for 10 years to expunge a simple DUI charge.

Many things don't particularly make since in the law until you look at it from a political stance.  No one is in the legislature championing the idea we need to be easier on criminals, but its always a sure fire way to get votes to say lets be tougher on criminals.

Just a little food for thought.

Here is the article.

Kansas Lawyer Sentenced to 3 years for Ponzi Scheme
By AP

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Kansas attorney faces three years in prison for his role in a scheme that bilked investors out of about $52 million.

James Scott Brown of Leawood, Kan. pleaded guilty earlier to participating in a conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. He was sentenced Tuesday to three years in prison without parole and ordered to pay $34 million in restitution.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Kansas City says investors loaned about $52.5 million through the scheme known as the British Lending Program. Victims thought they were loaning money for real estate projects, but Brown and two other men kept most of the money.

Martin Sigillito of Webster Groves, Mo., is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of leading the conspiracy. Derek Smith, of Oxfordshire, England, pleaded guilty and awaits sentencing.

NFL to push for more punishment for players who recieve DUI charges.

Three players have been arrested in the last nine days?  Maybe the NFL needs to hand down more punishment for players that are busted for DUI.  That is just what it seems they are trying to do.  It looks like the union and the owners have been talking about this for sometime but the owners don't want to make the necessary concessions to make it happen.

In, my opinion I don't think they need to focus on more stiff punishment for players accused of drunk driving.  But maybe if they are convicted of a drunk driving offense then more on field sanctions would be reasonable.  The simple fact of the matter is that when a regular person gets a DUI charge they may face negative ramifications at their place of employment.  The players should be held to that same standard.  To enforce some sort of punishment based on just a "charge" or a better term is aqcusation of drunk driving simply isn't fair.  After all, they should be presumed innocent.

Here is the article that inspired this post.


NFL has been pushing for increased DUI discipline
by Mike Florio

After a rash of recent DUI arrests, with three players popped in nine days for driving drunk, it’s obvious that whatever the NFL is doing to prevent players from possibly killing paying customers isn’t working. Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News agrees that more needs to be done.  “A guy over the legal limit for alcohol behind the wheel of a car, in fact, is as dangerous as a football player like Plaxico Burress going into a crowded club and having a couple of drinks with a loaded unlicensed handgun in his pants,” Lupica contends.

He’s right.  And, actually, a small piece of metal whizzing around a bar may be less dangerous than a 2,000-pound chunk of it flying down the street.  Per a source with knowledge of the NFL’s thinking, the league has wanted to increase the penalties for several years.  The league contends, we’re told, that the union has resisted.  In fairness to the NFLPA, however, the league could get higher DUI penalties if the league was willing to make the kind of concession necessary to get the union to agree.  If, for example, the NFL were willing to export the appeals process for violations of the substance-abuse policy to a neutral arbitrator, the players may be willing to allow that arbitrator to uphold or reject the stiffer proposed punishments for players who drive drunk.

Thus, while the NFLPA understandably is protecting the rights of men who technically are on their own time and who face consequences via the criminal justice system, both sides need to come together and look at the bigger picture.  Ultimately, this is an entertainment business.  And the men providing the entertainment shouldn’t randomly be endangering the lives of the folks they’re trying to entertain, either by driving drunk or by throwing swords into the stands.