I didn't know that, thanks for the info. I thought that they were restricted from selling at any time.
I think that the SEC has some part in this, if they don't make sure companies do the right thing, why have them at all? To me, this is just a situation where a company was run by fraudsters. Trying to link them to politicians is pointless. All companies make contributions, and all politicians take them. Enron was in business for a long time, and they didn't just decide to become crooked last year. The accountants wouldn't have destroyed documents if they didn't implicate them.
IMO because the securities laws are outdated and don't provide severe enough penalties, the fraudsters will continue to do their dirty work. The laws were written in 1933 and at that time the penalties were probably meaningful. They are not now. It is actually worth it to commit securities fraud today because the penalties are inadequate.
They need to be rewritten to reflect modern times, (a 10,000 dollar fine in 1934 may have been substantial, but what does it mean today?)and the sec needs to hire more people. That won't stop fraud, but at least it will make it a lot more painful to do it, and by hiring more people, the sec will be able to ferret out more cases.
Fraudsters assets should be treated the same way they treat drug violators assets, confiscation. Why should someone benefit from committing fraud? |
