Tag Archives: Crime

Fraud, White-Collar Crime

It’s Called Sexting and It’s a Crime

Leave a comment

The cell phone has revolutionized the way communications take place in today’s culture.The world of Star Trek has reached beyond the big screen to become a modern day technological tool that has made wireless communication a common day occurrence for millions of people. No longer are consumers bound to hard-wired telephones of years past, the cellular phone has made it possible to communicate with just about anyone, anywhere.Advances in technology have taken cell phones from the size of a brick to the size of a credit card, and now incorporates a host of new features, including Internet-enabled cameras that capture images and record video that can be uploaded to the Web.

No longer just a tool for business, cell phones are now used to link individuals together, and are increasingly being used by teens and pre-teens to communicate with one another.Thousands of text messages travel wirelessly from phone to phone as a new generation of cell phone users chat endlessly back and forth.These next generation phones also share text, video and digital images quickly and efficiently.

But it’s not just pictures of Fido and Calico that are being shared one with another.A recent study shows that 1 in 5 teen and pre-teen cell phone users are using their wireless phones to send inappropriate or nude pictures (or video) of themselves with other cell phone users.Often sent from girlfriend to boyfriend (following a trend set by two of the stars of High School Musical), these pictures are often shared with others without the sender’s knowledge or consent.Whether forwarded to others to brag, or as a means of retaliation in the event of an argument, the end result is often humiliation, embarrassment, or degradation of the person featured in the shared image.

Teens Sexting

The practice is called “Sexting” and it’s a crime. Yet few juveniles (and fewer parents) know this is the case.In some states, sexting is a misdemeanor, but in a growing number of others it is a felony. An increasing number of states view this as the transmission of child pornography (and prosecute it as such) if the images are of someone under the age of 18 (or if inappropriate images are sent to someone under age 18). And the courts are not just “slapping the wrist” of offenders any longer; as the proliferation of cases are filtering into the courts.

In a recent case in Florida, a 17-year old girl sent a nude picture of herself to her 18-year old boyfriend. After an argument, the 18-year old boy sent the nude picture to everyone in the girl’s “friends” list, which unbeknownst to him included her teachers, parents, and close friends.The young man was arrested, charged and convicted of transmitting child pornography via an electronic medium and was ordered to register as a sex offender. He lost his job, was kicked out of college, and is unable to live with his Father because his dad lives too close to a school. He was also ordered to go through a sex offender’s rehabilitation class, and will remain on the registered sex offender’s list until the age of 45. His picture is featured on the state’s website, and has to daily deal with the humiliation and embarrassment for his actions.

The young girl who sent him the picture also faced embarrassment, ridicule and humiliation from friends and others who heard about the high profile case. The lives of two families were forever damaged because a young girl thought it “cool” to send naked pictures of herself to her boyfriend and subsequently having those images forwarded (without her knowledge or consent) to others by her boyfriend after a fight. Both actions were wrong, and both individuals (as well as their families) have had to deal with the consequences of wrong choices… and for the young boy, those consequences will follow him for the next 25-30 years.

In Pennsylvania, three girls who sent nude or partially nude pictures of themselves to three boys in their school now face felony charges of distributing child pornography. A Texas eighth grader was jailed for sending a nude picture of himself to another student. In Virginia, two boys (ages 15 and 18) have been charged with solicitation and possession of child pornography with intent to distribute after law enforcement learned the teens sought nude pictures from three juveniles, one in elementary school. According to a report issued by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, of the 2100 children who were identified as victims of online porn, 1 in 4 initially sent the images to themselves. Some did it for fun, and others were tricked by adults they met online.

In another case in Pennsylvania, a 15-year old girl has been charged for sending nude pictures of herself over the Internet to a 27 year old she met online. The intent was not to jail her, but to help her get counseling and other help she needs, according to the District Attorney handling the case. He added the 27 year old has been sentenced to 10 years for having sex with the juvenile. In Ohio, 8 teens have been arrested for trading nude pictures of themselves with others.One of the girl’s fathers found the images and reported authorities.

Yet every day this practice continues, and is proliferating at an alarming rate among today’s youth.

Cyber-bullying is the use of any electronic medium to humiliate, ridicule, intimidate, embarrass, threaten or abuse another person. In a culture that uses sex to sell everything from underwear to toothpaste, today’s teens and preteens often have no sense or morality when it comes to decency standards.In the 1960’s, TV censors would not permit open-mouthed kisses to be shown, and even married couples slept in separate twin beds on many TV shows. A generation later, little (if anything) is left to the imagination…even in prime time. Music videos, movies, soap operas, and even (so-called) family television shows continue to push the decency boundaries to the point that few, if any, moral standards are enforced by the FCC. Today’s teens and pre-teens see so many sex acts on TV, they have accepted the lack of decency standards as normal.

Coupled with a growing lack of parental supervision and guidance, today’s youth lack moral restraint and see no problem with sending inappropriate or nude pictures of themselves to others (or posting them online). What they don’t understand is that once an image is posted on the Internet, it is forever there and can’t be removed. Today’s technology archives virtually all email, as well as postings to social networking (and other) websites. And images sent to another person’s cell phone are now outside their control and can be posted to a website or shared with others without their knowledge or consent. Once forwarded to other cell phones by a third party, those images can be forwarded to countless others anywhere in the world.

But it’s not just teens and pre-teens who are engaging in this activity. A small but growing number of adults, including married spouses, are sending inappropriate or nude pictures of themselves over cell phones. Those who should know better (and be setting a positive example for the younger generation to follow) are sadly illustrating a disturbing lack of conscience and moral fortitude by engaging in sexting.

The saddest part of sexting is that the act of cyber-bullying starts with the individual who actually sends a picture of himself (or herself) to another person. Sexting is humiliating to the person who sends his or her picture to another, whether they realize it or not…and this is compounded when those images are shared with others either by cell phone or posting online. The young girl who takes an inappropriate picture of herself and sends it to her boyfriend is just as guilty of cyber-bullying as the boyfriend who shares it with others. Both acts are immoral, and could be considered a crime.

What many teens and pre-teens don’t consider now is the long term implications of impulsive, foolish choices made today. Imagine the shock when a prospective employer conducts a background check on a recent high school or college graduate only to find inappropriate or nude pictures posted in a number of Internet archives. As previously stated, these images, once posted, are there forever and can be accessible to anyone who has Internet access. As these teens and pre-teens marry in the future, and their children begin to search online, how will these parents explain the fact their suggestive, inappropriate, or naked images are there?

A question that deserves to be asked is why do children need cell phones in the first place? While they do provide a measure of convenience (and security), the vast majority of children use cell phones solely for pleasure and not for other purposes. Parents spend hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars each year to provide cell phones almost exclusively so they can talk to their friends, play games, or engage in web-based activities using their phones. And if the child is given a phone primarily for communication purposes with their family (or emergencies), do they really need a gadget-laden phone with all the bells and whistles (including Internet access or image capture capabilities)? Would not a basic cell phone suffice? How many instances are there where a landline is not readily available that a cell phone is a necessity, and not a luxury? If children are given a cell phone, are they mature enough to use it appropriately?

Plus there are no studies on the long-term health risks associated with cell phone use by children into adulthood.

It is important to note that if a parent is providing a cell phone to a child, and paying for the service, they should understand they could be held liable in any civil action taken by others as a result of an inappropriate use of the cell phone by their children. Some federal legislators are even considering a measure that would hold parents criminally liable if the child’s phone is used for sexting or other inappropriate uses.

Parents should talk to their children about cell phone use (and etiquette). They should also regularly check their children’s cell phones (and social networking sites, like Facebook, Orkut and MySpace) to make sure that there are no inappropriate images or content therein. As parents could be held liable for the content stored on or transmitted by their children’s cell phones, they have a vested interest in actively monitoring that phone’s usage. Children should understand the potential ramifications of posting inappropriate or nude pictures of themselves or others on cell phones or the Internet (including email), and that the consequences of these wrong choices can be devastating to themselves and others.

It’s called “sexting”, and it’s a crime.

 

Fraud, White-Collar Crime

White Collar Crimes – Charges and Penalties

Leave a comment

White collar crime is a unique type of crime that is considered to be different in many ways from the more traditional, usually violent “blue collar” crimes. The term was coined by Professor Edwin Hardin Sutherland in 1939 to describe crimes committed by professionals in the workplace. “White collar” refers to the white, collared shirts typically worn by people in administrative, business, and managerial positions. These crimes are typically nonviolent and frequently involve an abuse of power to steal money for personal gain.

Types of Crime

These business-related crimes come in many forms. Any individual who gains money through unlawful fraud or another illegal means is guilty of committing a white collar crime. Businesspeople create schemes to “skim off the top” of an asset pool or may steal huge amounts of money from investors or companies to fund a lavish lifestyle. Some of the common schemes that are classified as white collar crimes include:

Many critics point out that there is a major disparity between the convictions and penalties for white collar crime suspects versus blue collar crime suspects. They state that, because the crimes are typically nonviolent and involve individuals of a higher class, convicts receive shorter sentences and nicer prison accommodations than their blue collar counterparts. While this may be true for smaller cases, major criminals involved in fraud, Ponzi schemes, and other business-related fraud have recently been aggressively prosecuted. Some have received sentences for life in prison, along with huge court-ordered fines and restitution payments.

While the charge depends on the size of the illegal operation and the degree of involvement for each individual, committing a white collar crime typically results in a felony charge. This may seem steep since no one is physically hurt, but these types of crimes can cause considerable financial damage to hundreds or even thousands of people. Very large cases may even impact the regional or national economy to an extent.

Fraud

Financial Fraud: Pharmaceutical Executive Sold Fake Stock in Medical Research Company

Leave a comment

Pharmaceutical Executive Defrauds Investors Out of Millions by Selling Fake Stock in Medical Research Company

Pharmaceutical executive Greg Ruehle issued fake stock certificates like this one to victims who thought they were investing in a legitimate medical research company.

Greg Ruehle liked to gamble—the only problem was that he did it with other people’s money. In the process, the pharmaceutical executive not only swindled his friends and people from his hometown out of millions of dollars, he injured the reputation of a legitimate medical research company.

Ruehle, a California resident who worked in the biotech industry, was hired by the medical research firm ICB International (ICBI) to identify investors who could fund its research. The San Diego-based company is developing technologies for early diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

“Basically, the company’s founder invested his blood, sweat, and tears trying to come up with a cure for Parkinson’s disease,” said Special Agent John Roberts, who investigated the case from the FBI’s San Diego Division. “He was relying on Ruehle to help raise money to move the company forward.”

Instead, explained co-investigator Special Agent Bridgid Cook, Ruehle “collected nearly $2 million and used the money for gambling and other personal expenses.”

Ruehle was not a licensed broker. He was supposed to be a finder—someone who would introduce investors to the company, and then ICBI would take it from there. But Ruehle took advantage of his hometown friends, who relied on him to provide information about the company’s financial future. He took investors’ money and issued them fake stock certificates, none of which he reported to ICBI.

“There were a lot of victims in this case—more than 160,” Cook said, “and a major betrayal of trust.” Ruehle’s investors were mostly friends from Minnesota, where he grew up, and they were not wealthy. Many contributed $5,000 or $10,000. “He preyed upon people from his hometown,” Cook explained. “They relied on his expertise and knowledge of the industry.”

“Investors thought they were getting in on a great deal,” Roberts added. But not one of Ruehle’s investors saw a penny—and neither did ICBI. To make matters worse, the company had no idea its investment “finder” was collecting money and issuing fake stock in the company.

In 2015, some of the investors asked for proof that their money was being used at the company. In response, Ruehle sent them a letter on what appeared to be ICBI letterhead, allegedly signed by the company’s CEO. In truth, the letter was a forgery—Ruehle even misspelled the CEO’s name.

“ICBI was completely innocent in the fraud,” Roberts said, “but they were made to look bad. Certainly there was damage done to the company, which was trying to do a good thing.”

Worried investors eventually contacted the FBI, and within four months, Cook and Roberts had unraveled the scheme. Last month, Ruehle pled guilty to securities fraud. In addition, he admitted to possession of a stolen firearm—discovered during the execution of a search warrant—and acknowledged that he owned three stolen firearms, all unregistered.

“There was no reason for him to be buying guns off the street when he could have been buying them legitimately from a dealer,” Cook said, adding that the 64-year-old Ruehle is typical of many financial fraudsters. “He was charismatic and a natural salesman, but he used those skills to trick people. And then he used their money for gambling, to buy expensive cars, and to live on a waterfront property.”

Ruehle is scheduled to be sentenced in federal court later this spring.

San Diego-based ICBI’s mission is to develop technologies to transport therapeutic treatments through the blood-brain barrier to treat neuro-degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.  According to ICBI’s website, the company develops techniques for early diagnosis, monitoring of disease progression, and increased therapeutic efficacy of drugs for neuro-degenerative diseases and various cancers that currently cannot be reached by drugs.

Ruehle’s plea agreement requires that he forfeit the $1.9 million in proceeds and pay restitution to the victim investors.

In addition to the securities fraud charges, Ruehle pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen firearm.  In his plea, Ruehle admitted that he owned three stolen firearms, including two semi-automatic pistols and a revolver.  He has agreed to forfeit these weapons and another revolver to federal law enforcement.

“Business professionals who use their knowledge of industries and securities to prey on unsuspecting lay investors undermine the public’s confidence and ability to participate in the markets,” said U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy.  “As this case demonstrates, they also jeopardize innovation and the success of small businesses.  This type of egregious securities fraud is simply unacceptable.”

“Mr. Ruehle engaged in a pattern of lies and deceitful acts while violating the trust of family, friends, and associates,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge, Eric S. Birnbaum.  “The FBI is committed to investigating and seeking the prosecution of those who steal money through fraudulent investment schemes.”

“Firearms must be obtained through proper procedures by eligible recipients.” said ATF Special Agent in Charge Eric D. Harden. “This investigation is a reminder that the illegal use of firearms permeates all spectrums of crime.”

Resources:
– Press release

Fraud News From World, Report Fraud

New Hate Crime Statistics From FBI

Leave a comment
Hate Crime Statistics

FBI Releases 2014 Hate Crime Statistics

Today, the FBI released Hate Crime Statistics, 2014, the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s latest compilation about bias-motivated incidents throughout the nation. Submitted by 15,494 law enforcement agencies, the data provide information about the offenses, victims, offenders, and locations of hate crimes; however, the UCR Program does not estimate offenses for the jurisdictions of agencies that do not submit reports. Highlights of Hate Crime Statistics, 2014 follow.

  • Law enforcement agencies submitted incident reports involving 5,479 criminal incidents and 6,418 offenses as being motivated by bias toward race, gender, gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and ethnicity in 2014. The numbers are down from 2013 when 5,928 criminal incidents were reported involving 6,933 offenses.
  • There were 5,462 single-bias incidents involving 6,681 victims. A percent distribution of victims by bias type showed that 48.3 percent of victims were targeted because of the offenders’ racial bias, 18.7 percent were victimized because of the offenders’ sexual-orientation bias, 17.1 percent were targeted because of the offenders’ religious bias, and 12.3 percent were victimized due to ethnicity bias. Victims targeted because of the offenders’ bias against gender identity accounted for 1.6 percent of victims of single-bias incidents; disabilities, 1.4 percent; and gender, 0.6 percent.
  • There were 17 multiple-bias hate crime incidents involving 46 victims.
  • Of the 4,048 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against persons in 2014, intimidation accounted for 43.1 percent, simple assault accounted for 37.4 percent, and aggravated assault for 19.0 percent. Four murders and nine rapes (all nine from agencies that collected data using the revised rape definition) were reported as hate crimes.
    • Beginning with the 2013 data collection, the UCR Program’s revised definition of rape is “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” [This includes the offenses of rape, sodomy, and sexual assault with an object as converted from data submitted via the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).]
    • The UCR Program’s legacy definition of rape is “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
  • There were 2,317 hate crime offenses classified as crimes against property. The majority of these (73.1 percent) were acts of destruction/damage/vandalism. Robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and other offenses accounted for the remaining 26.9 percent of crimes against property.
  • In the UCR Program, the term known offender does not imply that the suspect’s identity is known; rather, the term indicates that some aspect of the suspect was identified, thus distinguishing the suspect from an unknown offender. Law enforcement agencies specify the number of offenders and, when possible, the race of the offender or offenders as a group. Beginning in 2013, law enforcement officers could also report whether suspects were juveniles or adults, as well as the suspect’s ethnicity when possible.
    • Of the 5,192 known offenders, 52.0 percent were white, and 23.2 percent were black or African-American. The race was unknown for 16.0 percent. Other races accounted for the remaining known offenders: 1.1 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native; 0.8 percent were Asian; less than 0.1 percent were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and 6.9 percent were of a group of multiple races.
    • Of the 1,875 offenders for whom ages were known, 81.0 percent were 18 years of age or older.
    • Of the 975 offenders for whom ethnicity was reported, 47.6 percent were Not Hispanic or Latino, 6.5 percent were Hispanic or Latino, and 1.7 percent were in a group of multiple ethnicities. Ethnicity was unknown for 44.2 percent of these offenders.

• Most hate crime incidents (31.6 percent) occurred in or near residences/homes. Nearly 18 percent (17.8) occurred on highways/roads/alleys/streets/sidewalks; 8.6 percent occurred at schools/colleges; 6.3 percent happened at parking/drop lots/garages; and 3.6 percent took place in churches/synagogues/temples/mosques. The location was considered other/unknown for 11.9 percent of hate crime incidents. The remainder of hate crime incidents took place at other specified or multiple locations.

Report Contains Info on Offenses, Victims, and Offenders

According to the FBI’s latest report, law enforcement agencies reported 5,479 hate crime incidents involving 6,418 offenses to our Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program in 2014. And these crimes—which often have a devastating impact on the communities where they occur—left 6,727 victims in their wake.

The latest figures are down from 2013, when 5,928 criminal incidents involving 6,933 offenses were reported.

Hate Crime Statistics, 2014 provides information about the offenses, victims, and offenders. Among some of the highlights:

  • Of the 5,462 single-bias incidents reported in 2014, 47 percent were racially motivated. Other motivators included sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and gender. (See above chart.)
  • Of the 6,418 reported hate crime offenses, 63.1 percent were crimes against persons and 36.1 percent were crimes against property. The remaining offenses were crimes against society, like illegal drug activity or prostitution.
  • The majority of the 4,048 reported crimes against persons involved intimidation (43.1 percent) and simple assault (37.4 percent).
  • Most of the 2,317 hate crimes against property were acts of destruction, damage, and vandalism (73.1 percent).
  • Individuals were overwhelmingly the most common victim of a single-bias hate crime, accounting for 82.4 percent of the reported 6,418 offenses. The remaining victim types were businesses, financial institutions, religious organizations, government, and society or the public.
  • Also during 2014, law enforcement agencies reported 5,192 known offenders in 5,479 bias-motivated incidents. (In the UCR Program, “known offender” does not imply that the suspect’s identity is known, only that some aspect of the suspect was identified by a victim or witness—such as race, ethnicity, or age.)

And while 15,494 law enforcement agencies contributed to UCR’s Hate Crime Statistics report in 2014, only 1,666 agencies reported hate crimes within their jurisdiction (the remaining agencies reported zero hate crimes).

To enhance the accuracy of hate crime reporting, representatives from the UCR Program participated in five hate crime training sessions provided jointly by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI. Since April 2015, DOJ and the FBI provided the training sessions to law enforcement agencies and community groups in several different areas of the county. UCR personnel also worked with states to ensure proper data submission and met with police agencies to provide training and discuss crime reporting issues.

In addition to releasing annual Hate Crime Statistics reports, which give the nation a clearer picture of the overall crime problem, the FBI also investigates incidents of hate crimes—as a matter of fact, it’s the number one priority within our civil rights program. We investigate hate crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction, assist state and local authorities during their own investigations, and in some cases—with the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division—monitor developing situations to determine if federal action is appropriate.

The 2016 release of the Hate Crimes Statistics report, which will contain 2015 data, will feature even more information—expanded bias types in the religion category and the added bias type of anti-Arab under the race/ethnicity/ancestry category. The collection of both types of data began in January 2015.

 

Original  Full Report: Hate Crime Statistics, 2014

Fraud News From World

Enron Case: Crime in the Suites

Leave a comment
Enron Declared Bankruptcy

When Enron declared bankruptcy in December 2001 and took with it the nest eggs of thousands of employees and stockholders, the FBI field office in Houston assigned two agents to investigate. Within weeks, the number of agents and support staff assigned to the case grew to 45, many hand-picked from field offices around the country for their expertise in traversing even the most circuitous paper trails.

The case would become the largest and most complex white-collar investigation in FBI history and spawn a unique investigative task force of prosecutors, agents and analysts in Houston and Washington, D.C., each uniquely skilled at drilling deep into balance sheets and following the money. Their job: to learn how company officials perpetrated fraud on such a grand scale, build a strong criminal case, and hold accountable those responsible.

The five-year investigation led to jury convictions of top Enron officials who enriched themselves by cheating investors with sham accounting, and guilty pleas from some 16 others who were in on it. Being a major case, it was administered at the highest levels of the FBI and the Department of Justice, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission. In Houston, Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) Michael E. Anderson, chief of his office’s economic crimes squad, led the investigation on the ground. He describes how agents assembled the case:

  • In January 2002, agents executed a consent search of Enron’s 50-story corporate headquarters building. The search lasted nine days as investigators unearthed critical documents and emerged with over 500 boxes of evidence. At the same time, agents conducted more than 100 interviews that helped identify fresh leads for investigators.
  • In February 2002, Enron’s board of directors issued findings from its own internal investigation—the Powers Report, named for William Powers Jr., head of the special investigation committee that wrote it—that said Enron executives reaped millions by violating basic accounting principles. “That was a gold mine,” SSA Anderson said. Agents conducted over 1,800 interviews in the U.S. and overseas.
  • Agents expert at teasing forensic evidence from computers—a Computer Analysis and Response Team—collected over four terabytes (imagine 4,000 copies of an encyclopedia) of data, including e-mail from over 600 employees. Meanwhile, the Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory in Houston processed some 30 terabytes of data, making still more sense of the paper trail and flagging important leads for investigators.
  • Financial analysts combed through hundreds of bank and brokerage accounts to track fraudulent purchases, which proved critical in securing restraining orders, seizing more than $168 million in assets and supporting insider trading charges.

What emerged was a mosaic of inter-related schemes—some hardly more than smoke and mirrors—that toppled a company that once boasted annual revenues over $150 billion. Enron ripped off California, selling energy to the state’s strapped utilities at over-inflated rates. Officials overstated the company’s fledgling Broadband venture, hitching the company’s stock price to the star of the still-nascent Internet bubble. The company overvalued its international assets by billions to generate cash flow and manipulated its quarterly earnings statements to keep Wall Street happy and its stock price afloat.

SSA Anderson said it was the thousands of victims, hard-working employees who lost their pensions, and the desire to hold accountable those responsible for the failure of Enron, that motivated agents, analysts, and others on the Enron Task Force to press ahead on the massive case.

“They lost their retirements, their health insurance, their livelihoods. That kept everyone interested in pressing forward in spite of the huge personal sacrifices inherent in working a major case for over five years,” Anderson says. “If it’s some consolation to them, the people that were responsible for this fraud were punished for it.”

 

Ten Years Later: The Enron Case

It was 10 years ago this month that the collapse of Enron precipitated what would become the most complex white-collar crime investigation in the FBI’s history.

Top officials at the Houston-based company cheated investors and enriched themselves through complex accounting gimmicks like overvaluing assets to boost cash flow and earnings statements, which made the company even more appealing to investors. When the company declared bankruptcy in December 2001, investors lost millions, prompting the FBI and other federal agencies to investigate.

The sheer magnitude of the case prompted creation of the multi-agency Enron Task Force, a unique blend of investigators and analysts from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and prosecutors from the Department of Justice.

Agents conducted more than 1,800 interviews and collected more than 3,000 boxes of evidence and more than four terabytes of digitized data. More than $164 million was seized; to date about $90 million has been forfeited to help compensate victims. Twenty-two people have been convicted for their actions related to the fraud, including Enron’s chief executive officer, the president/chief operating officer, the chief financial officer, the chief accounting officer, and others.

“The Enron Task Force’s efforts resulted in the convictions of nearly all of Enron’s executive management team,” said Michael E. Anderson, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Houston Division, who led the FBI’s Enron Task Force in Houston. “The task force represented a model task force—the participating agencies selflessly and effectively worked together in accomplishing significant results. The case demonstrated to Wall Street and the business community that they will be held accountable.”

Resources:

– A Look Back at the Enron Case
– Enron trial exhibits and documents

Fraud

Crime Stoppers Reviews

Leave a comment

 

Crime stoppers Reviews

Crime Stoppers іѕ а civilian, nоn profit, charitable organization thаt brings tоgеthеr іn а triparte relationship, thе police services оf а community, thе media аnd thе community іn thе fight аgаіnѕt crime.

Crime Stoppers рrоvіdеѕ citizens wіth а vehicle tо anonymously supply thе police wіth information аbоut а crime оr potential crime оf whісh thеу hаvе knowledge. Cash rewards аrе offered tо people whо call thе program аnd thеіr information leads tо аn arrest.

Who administers thе Crime Stoppers Program?

A volunteer board оf Directors actively administers аnd іѕ responsible fоr thе program. Thе Crime Stoppers Society іѕ а non-profit charitable organization аnd іѕ responsible fоr raising funds аnd thе disbursements оf rewards. Thе Board оf Directors work іn close cooperation wіth thе Police Department аnd аll areas оf thе media.

How іѕ thе Crime Stoppers program funded?

Crime Stoppers іѕ а Community Project supported bу donations оf money, goods оr services. Contributions frоm individuals, corporations, clubs, professional associations, retailers, civic аnd social groups kеер thе Crime Stoppers program functional. All donations tо а Crime Stoppers Society аrе tax deductible.

How dіd Crime Stoppers begin?

In July 1976, іn Albuquerque Nеw Mexico, а university student wаѕ killed durіng а gas station robbery. Aftеr 6 weeks оf investigation thе police hаd vеrу fеw leads аѕ tо whо wаѕ responsible. Police investigators thought thаt іf thе public wаѕ аblе tо observe а re-enactment оf thе crime оn television thіѕ mіght lead tо а citizen providing information thаt mау lead tо аn arrest.

Thе police investigators wеrе right. A0 caller contacted thе police Department thе nеxt day аftеr ѕееіng thе re-enactment. Thе tip information wаѕ еnоugh tо lead thе police tо thе twо men whо wеrе responsible. Wіthіn 72 hours оf thе re-enactment bеіng aired, thе police hаd solved thе murder. Thіѕ wаѕ thе beginning оf Crime Stoppers.

Sіnсе thе program started, thеrе аrе nоw mоrе thаn 1700 Crime Stoppers programs worldwide іn 32 countries. Mоrе thаn 425,000 crimes hаvе bееn solved ѕіnсе thе programs inception аnd оvеr $8 billion worth оf stolen property аnd narcotics hаvе bееn seized.

How dоеѕ Crime Stoppers work?

Thе Crime Stoppers tip line іѕ staffed bу trained personnel whо receive, process, аnd pass оn tip information tо investigating officers. Callers аrе gіvеn а code number whісh іѕ uѕеd іn аll subsequent calls аnd callers dо nоt hаvе tо identify themselves.

A reward оf uр tо $2,000 іѕ offered tо аnуоnе providing information whісh leads tо аn arrest fоr а crime. Rewards mау аlѕо bе mаdе fоr information leading tо thе recovery оf stolen property, thе seizure оf illegal drugs оr аn arrest оn аn outstanding warrant.

Thе media іѕ а vеrу important component оf Crime Stoppers. An unsolved crime mау bе re-enacted аnd shown оn television оr mау bе publicized іn а newspaper оr aired оn thе radio. Thе media аlѕо brings thе program tо thе attention оf thе public