Opinion ID: 804324
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Corporate Culture Generally

Text: The government argues that the district court misapprehended the government's position when it considered Prosperi and Stevenson to be singled out for prosecution. In support of this argument, the government cites the district court's statement at sentencing that [i]t is tempting but ultimately, I think, an abuse of my power as a sentencing judge to hold these defendants responsible for all of the excesses of modern corporate ills. However, this statement is a response to the government's sentencing argument, in which it stated: [W]e not only saw it in this case, but it's exactly what is going on today in front of Congress when they investigate the collapse of the banking community on Wall Street, when we have a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. There is clearly a lack of accountability and unwillingness of the business community to take responsibility for anything that went wrong, and that's what I think we've dealt with throughout this case. -31- Later in its argument, discussing the letters submitted on the defendants' behalf, the government added: [F]ive years ago if somebody were to talk about Bernie Madoff, they would have said he's one of the biggest philanthropists in the country. Today we know he's behind the biggest fraud in the history of the United States. So, you know, people have two sides to them and can engage in criminal activity and also be loving family members and productive members of the community. Given these arguments, the court understandably felt that the government was asking it to consider the excesses of modern corporate ills in sentencing the defendants. The court refused to do so, focusing instead on the actions of the defendants and their personal circumstances.