Lorn Leitman, CPA and Attorney sentenced to 17 1/2 years in Federal Prison for a Ponzi Scheme!

July 14, 2011

Lorn Leitman, attorney and CPA, of Miami, Florida, to 210 months’ incarceration for his role in a 10-year Ponzi scheme. In an unusual decision, the court departed upward from a sentencing guideline range of 121-151 months, commenting, “this case is exceptional.”

A federal grand jury charged the defendant with violating the mail fraud statute for defrauding elderly victims and retirees, among others, through the operation of a Ponzi scheme which sought investments in either phantom residential mortgages or a separate venture burdening U.S. military personnel with predatory and usurious loans. The defendant pled guilty to one count of mail fraud on April 6, 2011 and faced a maximum possible sentence of imprisonment for 20 years. Several victims appeared in court to address the impact of the fraud. As one victim explained, losses from the Ponzi scheme forced the end of his retirement and his return to work. He commented, “my dreams are dead.”

The court explained that the decision to sentence above the guidelines resulted from the defendant’s conduct preying upon his closest friends, fellow servicemen, the elderly and retirees, and noted that the defendant breached codes of conduct applicable to members of the Florida Bar and certified public accountants. In addition to the enhanced sentence, the court ordered the defendant to pay $3,308,435.03 in restitution to victims.

OBSERVATION:

From personal and past experience in dealing with fraud and now fraud prevention, the most likely target of those scammed are folks who are close to the perpetrator.  Reality is, in this case, the time in prison will leave Leitman a changed man and the chance of seeing any restitution is slim.

If you were a victim of this crime, please take a moment and share how you were lured into Leitman’s trap.  Your comments may help others recognize and avoid a similar fate.

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!


White Collar Crime hard to Deter? Perhaps we’re trying the wrong approach says Business Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher

February 23, 2010

How do companies deter White Collar Crime?

With media reports filled with stories of “white collar crime” such as the developing Koss embezzlement story and the on-going reports related to Allen Stanford and recently sentenced Bernie Madoff, it’s no wonder that organizations are seeking to find deterrents to this seemingly growing phenomenon.

As I prepare to address a group in just hours, I came across this article in the Charleston Regional Business Journal and it struck me – “We’re going about this all wrong!”  But, before I suggest what’s right let’s look at excerpts from the article featured below.  The whole article is here:

Law school panelists: White collar crime hard to deter

By Andy Owens
aowens@scbiznews.com
Published Feb. 22, 2010

Crime pays, at least if you’re a midlevel executive wearing a white collar.

Panelists at a symposium on crime and punishment said that fraudsters find the risk of being caught typically worth the potential reward for all but the most top-level executives.

Using Enron and WorldCom, along with more recent financial fraud, as examples, the panelists — a federal prosecutor, a CPA and a former Securities and Exchange Commission official — said deterring white collar crime is difficult, partly because criminals are typically caught after years of high living and typically only the top executives receive the harshest penalties.

COMMENT #1: The first problem I see is that none of the panelists have any background as a criminal.  Each represent a segment of society that intellectually is connected with and perhaps understands “white collar crime”, but none are “white collar criminals.”  Therefore, they see things from their perspective but have no practical experience in showing others how to deter crime.  See the list below and then ask yourself, how could any of these folks really identify with the commission of a crime and therefore how to prevent it?

The symposium, held by the Charleston Law Review and the Riley Institute at Furman University, took place Thursday and Friday in downtown Charleston. It included a keynote address by the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative based in Montgomery, Ala., as well as a series of panel discussions by scholars, judges, lawmakers, lawyers and public advocates.

‘Like the Whac-A-Mole game’

For example, in 2000, the FBI reported that the number of suspicious mortgage fraud cases was 3,515. By 2008, that number had risen to 63,713. Even eliminating false alarms, the numbers are growing at an enormous rate, said Daniel V. Dooley, CPA and a former senior partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers.

“This trend is staggering,” Dooley said. “This is like the Whac-A-Mole game.”

COMMENT #2: Why is this trend up?   To someone who has been involved in white collar crime the answer is obvious.  From 2000 to 2008 we experienced unprecedented economic growth.  Everything was financially rosy.  We acquired more debt.  We lived more extravagant lifestyles.  We created a larger life illusion.  Therefore, two things were present to fuel the white collar crime growth: (1) more money to steal; and (2) greater need (the first component that exists for the creation of a white collar crime).  The crimes have always been there, its the economic decline that has caused them to come to the surface.  Think of white collar criminal as fish (bottom feeders if you will).  When the water is high you don’t see them.  They are there all right, but out of sight.  But in a drought when the water level recedes they come to the surface.  In an economic recession, when the money recedes you see white collar crime come to the light.  The principle is easy.

In a recent paper, Dooley and Mark Radke, a former SEC official and partner with Dewey & LeBoeuf, wrote that this can be a big challenge to the argument that lengthy prison sentences deter fraud.

“Most financial criminals don’t think about it, and they don’t think they’ll get caught,” Dooley said.

The 150 years in jail that Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff received will likely deter only him from committing similar fraud, Dooley said, and even those who consider they might get caught know that they might have a decade or more to live off ill-gotten gains before anyone notices.

COMMENT #3: Will the long prison sentence deter the crime.  Well with Madoff getting 150 years and a fellow from Maryland sentenced in Texas to 99 years for a $10 million crime – folks are taking notice.  But, Dooley is right.  Most white collar criminals don’t think they will get caught.  Why?  First, once you have satisfied your NEED…you begin to RATIONALIZE your behavior.  That’s the tricky part cause if you can convince yourself that you’re not committing a crime – you begin to believe your own ILLUSION (your own lie).  So…if you can help people understand the impact that PERSONAL RATIONALIZATION has in the commission of the crime, you likely can begin to prevent the behavior that leads to such an ILLUSION.

Radke thinks the SEC should act less like a prosecuting agency and more like a gatekeeper that could shut down rip-off artists even without a case that could go before a court. He said a lot of the damage that’s being done could be stemmed if the SEC would use its regulatory power to freeze assets and bar fraudulent activity from occurring.

“You don’t have to build a case beyond a reasonable doubt” to act, Radke said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rhett DeHart agreed that a more regulatory approach would be helpful in stopping financial criminals, but he said it’s impossible to know if large prison sentences deter the trend of financial fraud because you can’t measure the incidence of someone not committing a crime.

“Who knows whether they deter others or not?” he said. “You can’t measure a crime that’s not committed. I think deterrence may be the least important factor.”

COMMENT #4:  O.K. guys – this is a very nice academic exercise, but beneficial – I doubt it.   So as a start let me provide a list of things that might help to deter white collar crime:

  1. Make it known that you, from time to time, will have random auditors reviewing departments, processes and procedures – and THEN DO IT.  For example, you might have a plant (yes, fake employee) come into a department and test the integrity of workers.
  2. Post examples of folks who have committed a crime and the punishment that they received, and without violating some perceived right – make sure that those who internally violate are known and prosecuted.  If folks feel that their indiscretion will be swept under the table they are more likely to commit the crime.
  3. Self serving statement – but hire someone other than an academic to come in and speak to your folks.  You have no idea the impact it has when employees are faced with someone who committed the crime and then did the time.  I, or folks like me, make it real and the more real you can make it the more someone will think before they take some “white collar crime” action.
  4. Consistently keep the message of “choices and consequences” before them.  With companies I consult with, I often find that different mediums shared frequently has a positive impact.  It is said that a person might see an advertisement seven (7) times before they really consider buying.  If that is true in marketing, then aren’t we marketing good behavior.  Yes…of course so!  So, we need to approach behavior marketing the same as product marketing.  All we are looking for is a positive outcome.

FINAL QUESTION:  Do you think that “white collar crime” can be deterred and if so, how?  YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!


Koss and Sue Sachdeva’s Accounting debacle. Terrence Rice, a Milwaukee CPA, comments…

February 22, 2010

As a business ethics speaker and author…I find myself amazed at times with what comes up daily to write about.  Of course, to Milwaukee…the who Koss mess with Sue Sachdeva’s embezzlement is unique (to say the least) and creating quite a stir.  Not only does this reflect poorly on senior management, but also on the independent accounting firm.  But, of course, to top it off is the Sue’s claim on not being guilty due to a mental/emotional spending disorder.  That’s worth following this story in and of itself.  But…

Rarely when I write these entries do I get a response so well thought out as the one I received 30 or so minutes ago.  It was so well done that I asked the author – Mr. Terry Rice, CPA, if I might feature it in a new blog entry.  He was kind enough to say yes.  Read below and feel free to join in on the discussion.  For sure, we will have plenty to discuss for months to come…!

The Milwaukee business community is wondering how a company with $38 million in annual sales could have lost $30 million in an embezzlement.  This goes beyond being just a crime, it is an embarrassment.

The internal controls were lax, the separation of duties were lax, the audit committee was lax, the Grant Thornton auditing firm was lax, the CEO was lax and on and on.  Plenty of blame to go around.  The Koss Corporation and the Koss family had ultimate trust in their VP of Finance, Sue Sachdeva. She purchased expensive items using her own American Express account and then fraudulently wired Koss Corporation funds to pay the bills. The IRS will be knocking soon.  If the American Express fraud department hadn’t reported it, she would probably still be doing it. As I tell my clients, you cannot trust anyone.

In a 2007 interview, Michael Koss complained that the new costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley were particularly galling to his family.  The problem is that Sarbanes-Oxley did not go far enough.  Sarbanes-Oxley, for all its reputation as a hard-hitting law, fails to correct a crucial accounting system weakness: the potential for what is called the “moral seduction” of outside auditors.  Executives still have too much control over the hiring and firing of auditors, which discourages accountants from providing failing critical reports. A company’s culture between auditors and management usually becomes entrenched.
To see the real-world consequences here, just look at Enron.  Its auditor, Arthur Andersen, came to identify so strongly with the client that its judgment was compromised, and the demise of one led to the demise of the other.

SarbOx was supposed to change all that.  Yet the law leaves in place strong incentives for auditors to please clients even as it mandates complex new rules that are supposed to make corporate books more credible.  The system needs to be changed.  The auditors need to make independent assessments instead of just ratifying clients’ accounting. The auditors need to be hired by boards rather than company executives and be retained for a fixed period without the chance of being rehired.

In the 2007 interview, Koss said that “it’s annoying having to deal with this extra layer of bureaucracy.  Small companies like ours are spending hours in auditing committees that would be better spent on strategic planning.”  Sarbanes-Oxley requires that there be an audit committee that is independent of management. There had to be some indication in the Koss numbers that something was wrong.  The other executives and the members of the board of directors had a duty to pay closer attention to the numbers. If the audit committee is filled with laymen or buddies of the management, business will continue as usual.

The audit committee is uniquely suited to assess risk and internal financial controls and to ensure that company strategy and finances are aligned.  It is time for this committee to assess its unique role as messenger to the rest of the board of directors and to shareholders on all matters of risk management and financial-reporting judgments and to bolster trust. Brilliant and curious individuals are what audit committees desperately need, especially during these times of economic turmoil. The audit committee needs to concentrate on protecting shareholders from misleading accounting and outright fraud.

The audit committee of Koss Corporation and the outside auditing firm, Grant Thornton, failed in their responsibilities.  Don’t let your company be the next Koss Corporation.

Terrence Rice is a Milwaukee CPA and is author of www.bankembezzlement.blogspot.com and www.churchembezzlement.blogspot.com

A BIG TIME OUT HERE…now as I was preparing to post this entry I saw an article that knocked my socks off.  Article headline:  GRANT THORNTON FIRES BACK AT KOSS CORP.  The article in the Business Journal of Milwaukee states:

After its firing as outside auditor for Koss Corp., which is reeling from a $31 million embezzlement case, Grant Thornton LLP fired back that it was never hired to evaluate “internal controls” at Koss.

Allow me to show my ignorance, but as a former CPA (tax partner in a firm in NC) I thought that an AUDIT required and included an evaluation of the company’s system of internal controls as a basis or foundation for the opinion that they render.  IF the internal controls were lacking, either the CPA firm would have to do more work or state that an opinion as to the fairness of the firms records could not be issued.  (Layman’s terms).  So please somebody tell me what I’m missing! The excuse for not detecting a MAJOR FRAUD was we weren’t hired to evaluate the “internal contols”… REALLY? The full Business Journal article is here.  I’m speechless…  Well back to Terry…

Terry…thanks for following the story (although I imagine that it’s hard not to up in your neck of the woods).  More important thank you for your thoughful comment.

IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT…feel free to do so…AFTER ALL YOUR COMMENTS ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOME.


William Murray California CPA Charged with $13 Million Fraud – Former CPA and Business Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher comments…

February 11, 2010

Every choice has a consequence.  I know…as a former CPA charged and convicted of fraud…I understand so well the effect of the choice we make.

Assistant United States Attorney Matthew D. Segal alleges that William Murray used false pretenses and representations to steal $13,357,133 from clients of his tax return preparation business, Murray & Young.  Mr. Murray is well known in the Sacramento area. He had frequently provided tax tips on a local television channel and served on the board of a charitable foundation.

Murray told more than 50 clients that he would pay taxes or make investments on their behalf and that therefore they should write checks to accounts that he controlled.

The information further alleges that Murray actually used the money to finance an extravagant lifestyle: he remodeled his house, funded a limousine business, and purchased things such as luxury automobiles, hand-woven rugs, art, sports memorabilia, wines, and jewelry.

The information also states that Murray used $3,507,502 in client funds to pay other clients’ tax obligations or to purport to return other clients’ investments.

The maximum statutory penalty for a violation of the mail fraud statute is 20 years in prison and a fine equal to the greatest of $250,000, twice the gain, or twice the loss caused by the offense. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory sentencing factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

The charges are only allegations and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

WHERE FROM HERE?

Speaking from person experience, if Mr. Murray is guilty…he would be best advised to surrender his license, plead guilty and make every effort to make restitution.  Facing time in prison is less than pleasant, but survivable.  Perhaps, he, like I, can find the experience in prison one of learning and make a different set of choices following his release.

I recall the best advice I was ever given.  A man once said to me soon after my crime came to light: “Son, you’ve made a terrible mistake, but YOU ARE NOT A MISTAKE.  The Choices you make today will define your life in the future and the legacy you leave for your two sons…  MAKE THOSE CHOICES WISELY!”

Comments are welcome.


Charles E. Phillips – What you do in the dark will be brought to the light – the billboard campaign outing…

January 23, 2010

As a kid I’ll never forget my mother buying an Elvis Presley gospel record with an upbeat song entitled “Run On.”  Elvis seemed to sing it so fast that I recall not being able to completely understand all the words.  But, one line I understood clearly went as follows, “As sure as God made the day and the night
What you do in the dark will be brought to the light.”

Now, I admit, I didn’t completely understand the implication of those words…not until my hidden activities came into the bright light of the media.  In my case, that fact that I was a liar and a thief was splashed all across the front pages of my hometown newspaper.  Were the headlines true?  Unfortunately yes!

Now it seems, according to a CNN report, another man named Charles – Charles E. Phillips – is finding out the implications of those words as his ex-mistress has elected to operate a “fatal attraction” splash of her own on billboards in major cities.  Charles was outed.  And, my heart goes out to him.

The CNN story reports in part (the whole story is here).

Phillips, 50, the co-president of Oracle Corp., admitted the affair with Wilkins, 42, in a statement released by his spokeswoman Friday.

Often talked of as a potential successor to Oracle founder and CEO Larry Ellison, Phillips is one of the software company’s most senior and highly paid excecutives. On top of an $800,000 salary for 2009, he took home stock options and other compensation valued by Oracle at more than $18 million.

“”I had an 8½-year serious relationship with YaVaughnie Wilkins,” the statement said. “My divorce proceedings began in 2008. The relationship with Ms. Wilkins has since ended and we both wish each other well.”

Phillips is reportedly still married to his wife, Karen, and the two have a son together.

It seems that Charles Phillips did indeed have an affair that apparently is ending his marriage – as divorce proceedings are in the works.  But, obviously, the former mistress wanted the last word by posting a series of giant billboards in New York, San Francisco and Atlanta.

New Yorkers passing through midtown Manhattan this week saw the smiling faces of “Charles and YaVaughnie” beaming down upon them from one of two billboards in the city with the caption reading, “You are my soulmate forever! – cep.”

SO WHAT’S THE POINT?

As a business ethics speaker, I often speak to executive groups in major corporations and since I share my journey from Tax Partner in a CPA firm to federal prisoner, I, more times than not, see participants cop an attitude that they would never do something that would bring such dramatic consequences to themselves.  I imagine that Phillips felt the same way.  In fact, I would suspect that he would have felt that his private life had no effect on his business and that the first time he would be featured on CNN is when he took over the leadership of Oracle.

Instead the actions of his, obviously upset and less than ethical ex-mistress, is a perfect example of choices and consequences.  In fact, the first words that I speak to a group are – EVERY CHOICE HAS A CONSEQUENCE.

Consequences come in a variety of forms and in ways that we often don’t expect.  Appointed last year to President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Phillips is finding himself dealing more than much needed economic recovery ideas.

Choices and consequences…sorry Mr. Phillips, but for those who read…this is just another example how ethical choices (or unethical as the case may be) has implications that are unavoidable.

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!


Jimmy Choo shoes and Million Dollar Home – Chad Read and Emily Read now sentenced to Federal Prison!

January 5, 2010

From California to Lubbock, Texas – Chad and Emily Read lived a modest life.  Then Emily began working for Reaction Fitness Clubs (a modest health club chain) – and things changed.

From living with Emily’s mother to owning a series of large homes and a condo in Dallas, the Reads had a dramatic change in lifestyle.  From a $1.2 million home, to expensive cars, to a recreational vehicle, to designer clothes and Jimmy Choo shoes – the Reads enjoyed life in a way few experience.  But where did the money come from?  According to the Reads their new found wealth came from a trust fund her father left to her.  Reality…well there was no trust fund only embezzlement or theft!

Seems that Emily worked as a bookeeper for the fitness clubs referred to as the Reaction Fitness Clubs.  During that time she wrote a large number of checks from the club and either would cash the checks or deposit them into their personal accounts.  Likewise, they used funds from the club accounts to pay for their personal credit cards and purchase other luxury items.

EVERY CHOICE HAS A CONSEQUENCE!

Emily J. Read – now Chad Read’s ex-wife – was sentenced in September 2009 to 41 months in federal prison and ordered to pay more than $670,000 in restitution.

Chad Read was sentenced in December 2009 to 18 months in federal prison and ordered to pay restitution remaining of $15,000.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Obviously, both husband and wife were convicted and sentenced.  But, since Chad received a substantially lower sentence (in terms of time spent in prison), was it possible that he was not fully aware of the crime being committed by his (now) ex-wife?  And, what motivated Emily to change her former lifestyle and enter into an obvious life of crime?  Lastly, how was she so easily able to effect the crime?

There are three components of a white collar crime – NEED – OPPORTUNITY and RATIONALIZATION.  In this case, it is clear that Reaction Fitness Clubs did not have sufficient internal controls opening the door to “opportunity”.  Seems that Read had free reign and, management must have been asleep at the wheel in order for a fraud of this magnitude to have gone undetected for so long.

LESSON

To avoid fraud you either have to have someone so strong in their ethical beliefs or foundation that they won’t cross the line or you have to eliminate one of the three components – and in this case the easiest way to have avoided this disastrous consequence would have been the elimination of opportunity.  Any good CPA or business owner knows that internal controls are there to protect the business assets and preclude the likelihood of succumbing to temptation.

I can’t address the Read’s need or rationalization, but had sufficient controls been put in place, Emily would not have easily had the opportunity to effect her massive life changing fraud.

Your comments are welcome!


David G. Friehling, CPA for Bernie Madoff Investment Securities Charged with Fraud! And The Dominios Begin To Fall…

March 19, 2009

With a $65 Billion Ponzi scheme in play and Bernie Madoff electing to plead guilty, it is no great surprise that others will being to fall as the government widens the responsibility net for the largest Ponzi scheme in US history.

I must admit this hits home and was something I expected.  Although I wish I could say something different, I, too, was a CPA, created a Ponzi scheme and spent time in Federal prison.  It is no fun.  And, without a doubt, Friehling will spend time there himself – although my guess – his sentence will much longer than mine.

Yesterday, David G. Friehling, CPA (licensed in the State of New York) was charged with securities fraud, aiding and abetting investment adviser fraud, and 19madoff190 four counts of filing false audit reports with theExchange Commission (“SEC”).   Friehling is the sole practitioner at Friehling & Horowitz, CPAs, P.C. in New York.  As a point of reference, Friehling was the son-in-law of Jerome Horowitz (his former accounting partner) who didn’t live to see it all unravel.  He dided on March 12, the day Madoff plead guilty.

According to a news release issued by the US Attorney’s office:

From 1991 through 2008, F&H was the accounting firm retained by BLMIS (Bernie L. Madoff Investment Securities) purportedly to audit BLMIS’s financial statements. FRIEHLING created BLMIS’s certified and purportedly audited financial statements, including balance sheets, statements of income, statements of cash flows, and reports on internal control. FRIEHLING falsely certified that he had prepared such statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (“GAAS”) and in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Those financial  statements were filed with the SEC and sent to clients of BLMIS.   BLMIS paid FRIEHLING approximately $12,000 to $14,500 per month for his services between 2004 and 2007.

Sorry, but before going any further, one must question the payment.  $14,500 a month is a small price to pay for disgusing a fraud considering that Friehling will be facing certain loss of his license and a lot of time in Federal Prison.  But, there is more…  the news release goes on to say:

FRIEHLING failed to conduct audits that complied with GAAS and GAAP by, among other things, failing to: (a) conduct independent verification of BLMIS assets; (b) review material sources of BLMIS revenue, including commissions; (c) examine a bank account through which billions of dollars of BLMIS client funds flowed; (d) verify liabilities related to BLMIS client accounts; or (e) verify the purchase and custody of securities by BLMIS. FRIEHLING also failed to test internal controls as required under GAAP and GAAS standards. For example, FRIEHLING did not take any steps to test internal controls over areas such as BLMIS’s redemption of client funds, the payment of invoices for corporate expenses, or the purchase of securities by BLMIS on behalf of its clients. Further, commencing at least as far back as 1995, FRIEHLING did not maintain professional independence from his audit client, BLMIS.   Specifically, FRIEHLING and/or his wife had an account at BLMIS with a year-end net equity of more than $500,000 — the maximum amount that, under SEC rules, he could have invested with a broker-dealer client and still maintain his independence.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Friehling similarly did not conduct any audit procedures with respect to BMIS internal controls, and had no basis to represent that BMIS had no material inadequacies. Afraid that his work for BMIS would be subject to peer review, as required of accountants who conduct audits, Friehling lied to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for years and denied that he conducted any audit work.

Articles in Forbes stated the following:

“Friehling essentially sold his license to Madoff for more than 17 years while Madoff’s Ponzi scheme went undetected,” said James Clarkson, acting director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “For all those years, Friehling deceived investors and regulators by declaring that Madoff’s enterprise had a clean audit record.”

Madoff has said his business didn’t become a Ponzi scheme until the early 1990s, around the time that Horowitz retired and Friehling took over. He was not accused of wrongdoing in the court complaint.

Numerous reports claim that Friehling and family had $14 million invested with Madoff two months before his confession to the largest financial fraud in US history.  Since 2000, Friehling withdrew about $5.5 million from those accounts, the SEC stated.

WHERE FROM HERE?

Bernie Madoff, while perhaps brilliant (in his own way) is not capable – in my opinion – of pulling off a fraud of this magnitude without help.  I am not suggesting that Friehling knew about the Ponzi scheme (he says he didn’t), but it is likely that he’ll be found guilty on most of the charges as there is no doubt that he’s (at a minimum) negligent.  Selling his license for money seems very clear.

But, from these headlines, I suspect there will be a demand for more “accountability” for audited financial statements and regulations placed on compliant CPA’s.  That is not the answer.  I have stated before and will again, you cannot legislate or regulate ethics or morality.  If a person elects to be dishonest…they will be dishonest regardless of the rules in place.

Friehling was a puppet for Bernard Madoff.  Most people (although most will deny it) have a price.  It appears that Friehling’s price wasn’t all that much.  Comfortable yes – rich no!  And knowing that his reputation is ruined, his license all but gone and many many years in prison facing him, I know that Friehling wishes he’d never met Bernie Madoff.  Hind sight is 20/20 and there is no doubt with all that is facing this CPA – Friehling is just beginning to face the consequences of his choices.

Every choice has a consequence!

My prediction – Friehling isn’t the only pawn is this massive fraud to fall.  There will be others so stay tuned…

FRIEHLING, 49, faces a statutory maximum sentence of 105 years in prison.

YOUR COMMENTS WELCOME!

Read the rest of this entry »