The sentences for individuals arrested and convicted of white-collar crimes are established using a particular set of rules in which points are added or eliminated depending on the various aspects of the defendant’s behavior and the crimes committed. In large part, the guidelines are driven by the amount of losses caused by the fraudulent activity, which can easily increase the punishment to what is given drug dealers and murderers. Although the sentencing guidelines are simply a recommendation, in most cases, judges try to maintain punishments within the recommended range, in order to avoid government appeals.

In one recent case,however, the difference between the sentencing recommendation and what prosecutors asked for was a startling 200 years! R. Allen Stanford, a Texas tycoon,found guilty of operating a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme and convicted on 13 counts of fraud and money laundering, was expecting to receive a sentence of 30 years to life in jail, according to the recommended guidelines (considering that his criminal activity affected thousands of victims throughout the United States and the Caribbean). Surprisingly, prosecutors asked for a sentence of 230 years in jail, arguing that the judge should impose separate sentences for each of the violations.

This case fits perfectly in the pattern of recent white-collar crimes where defendants received punishments that have put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Everything indicates that, at the moment, white-collar crimes are seen as economic homicide, hence the federal prosecutors’ asking for such harsh sentences. It is also a fact that, after the recession, many judges have changed their attitude towards white-collar defendants, looking at them,not as harmless criminals who pose no real danger to society, but as violent criminals who deserve to pay for their actions.

According to Jed Rakoff, a New York federal judge and a member of the ABA Task Force, “the guidelines should be scrapped in their entirety,” since determining sentences for fraud cases doesn’t “fairly convey the reality of the crime or the criminal.” The judge recommended replacing the current calculation system based on points with another one that gives the judge the liberty to use a wide range of factors, none of which would automatically increase the sentence.

The question “Are punishments for white-collar criminals too harsh or too lenient?” has no simple answer, because there is no appropriate way to determine the sentence for each defendant, especially for those committing financial crimes. It is true that the impact of such criminal activity is far broader than burglaries or property crimes, but it is also much more difficult to grasp – it is probably harder for a rape victim to get on with her life than for an investor who has lost money in a Ponzi scheme.

White-collar crimes are among the hardest to defend. If you are being investigated for fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, or some other type of financial crime, it is crucial to remain silent and get legal counsel from a white-collar crime attorney. Call 773.908.9811 24/7 or fill out our case review form immediately to start building your case and have your charges reduced to the minimum.

About the Author Andrew M. Weisberg is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, Illinois. A former prosecutor in Cook County, Mr. Weisbergis a member of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar, an elite group of criminal attorneys who are certified by the Illinois Supreme Court to try death penalty cases. He is also a member of the Federal Trial Bar. Mr. Weisberg is a sole practitioner at the Law Offices of Andrew M. Weisberg.

According to a Forbes article, “the amount of court-issued warrants surging from 1,190 in 2000 to 3,194 in 2010 – a nearly 200% increase.” And if most of the times its use is still reserved to fight violent and organized crime, wiretapping has become a potent tool in high-profile white-collar crimes, as well.

Photo Source: http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/05/11/raj-318e4d07fe81a93b1bcf52479803127c3cc2ed45-s40-c85.jpg

Wiretaps played a crucial role in the most famous white-collar case of recent years, leading to the conviction of Galleon Group LLC co-founder Raj Rajaratnam in 2011 for conspiracy and security fraud. Prosecutors alleged the billionaire investor had several ‘corporate tipsters’ that provided him insider information – used to make what seemed at the time extremely inspired business investments – and built their case on a series of telephone conversations recorded over the course of 9 months in 2008.

There were three major conversations that sealed the trader’s fate. First one records a discussion between Rajaratnam and Rajiv Goel, a former Intel representative, about trading shares of People Support, about which he knows exactly when the price will go up, based on a tip from an inside man. The second conversation is between Raj and a former McKinsey executive about an AMD deal, ended with the latter encouraging Raj to buy up the stocks as soon as possible. On the last recording, Raj is discussing with one of his former partners at Galleon, Adam Smith, about a company named Vishay.

All recorded conversations between Rajaratnam and his informants, 45 in all, were essential to his conviction on 14 counts of securities fraud and conspiracy. On October 13, 2011, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison and fined over $150 million in criminal and civil penalties, the harshest-ever punishment imposed in a white-collar case.

Is Wiretapping Necessary?

According to the federal Wiretap Act, investigators must resort to wiretapping only if conventional investigative techniques prove unfruitful – they must demonstrate exactly how other procedures have failed or would have been too dangerous in those circumstances. The law was recently updated in order to “minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interceptions” and limit unnecessary intrusion into the suspect’s privacy.

Wiretapping is particularly important as part of investigators’ toolbox when the phone is regularly used to conduct criminal activities currently under investigation. Especially when it comes to organized crime and drug-related cases, there are few conventional alternatives for proving offenses, and prosecutors have no trouble showing that wiretapping was indeed needed. In white-collar crime cases, however, especially high-profile ones, regulatory agencies may claim prosecutors are acting with ‘reckless disregard’ of the defendant’s privacy rights and question the legality of wiretaps.

Charges for white-collar crimes are serious criminal accusations that should not be taken lightly. If you have been requested to appear before a Grand Jury in relation to an investigation into such criminal offenses, the experience and talent of a criminal defense lawyer can prove extremely valuable in preparing your case for the proceeding. Call Mr. Weisberg cell phone 24/7 at 773-908-9811 or text ‘LAWYER’ to 25827 to receive a call back.

About the Author Andrew M. Weisberg is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, Illinois. A former prosecutor in Cook County, Mr. Weisbergis a member of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar, an elite group of criminal attorneys who are certified by the Illinois Supreme Court to try death penalty cases. He is also a member of the Federal Trial Bar. Mr. Weisberg is a sole practitioner at the Law Offices of Andrew M. Weisberg.