24 Year Sentence

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15390805/

24 years for that? Some may say this is harsh, but I beg to differ. There were a lot of people who had their retirement in Enron, to be let down by the top level management in the company. Years and years of hard work have gone into their savings and stock options. When people are tricked into thinking a plummeting company is doing good, there is something wrong with the picture. Some may say that the CEO should not be to blame, but why the heck not? His job is to oversee the CFO to ensure his job is being done right. Blind trust in a CFO is possible, but only an idiot would put that level of trust in one. Besides, to not know what was going on, the CEO would have to walk around the office blindfolded. So the question I pose is this: Should these much stricter rules and laws encompass the CEO? Or should one person (the CFO) be solely to blame? I agree with the law, that there should be a number of people held accountable.

In addition, I think external audits should be required by law. There will be much less fraudulent activity going on, and a fresh look at a company’s financial report by an unbiased outsider may be what a company needs to stay in shape legally. There is no way to fully prevent fraud, but we can take appropriate measures to ensure it happens as little as possible, and those whom decide to practice it will be put to justice. There are a lot of lives ruined by the Enron scandal because of a company that made their numbers look good.