Does the fact that David Myers’ superior, Scott Sullivan, asked him to make the false accounting entries in WorldCom’s Accounting records diminish Myers’ responsibility for his improper conduct? Defend your answer. I don’t think David Myers’ responsibility for improper conduct diminishes even he is asked by his superior, Scott Sullivan. Scott Sullivan has his own fraud because he agreed and goes along with false accounting entries that eventually become part of an 11 billion fraud. Scott will get his punishment by what he did. But on David Myers’ side, he knew it was wrong to do this and he did not refuse to do it. There was an option he could choose, either to refuse or accept, and he chooses to accept to make the false accounting entries. In the summer of 2001, David realized there was no end to the company’s woes. He became depressed and considered quitting, but he was afraid that the scandal would follow him because of what he had already done. Overall, I think David’s responsibility should not be diminished because he was asked by someone.
What punishment, if any, do you believe David Myers should have been given for his role in the WorldCom fraud? If David Myers did not go to FBI, but keep hiding his fraud of what he did in WorldCom’s, he should get punishments, like going to jail for years and fines. But he is keeping doing good things like, volunteering as a bookkeeper at their church and worked on an archaeology dig nearby.
Is it appropriate for federal law enforcement authorities “to make an example” of individuals involved in high-profile financial frauds, such as WorldCom and Enron? Explain. I think it is appropriate for federal law enforcement authorities to make examples of individuals without saying her/his actual name. What happens in Enron is really a big thing that all the people know about it, and it also gives people the examples punishments and result of doing financial frauds.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document