Journal of Business and Technology Law, Vol. 3, No. 2, March 18, 2008
16 Pages Posted: 9 Apr 2008 Last revised: 9 May 2008
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been viewed as a watershed event in dealing with corporate fraud. In addition to its extensive provisions dealing with internal controls and corporate accounting procedures, the law adopted new crimes and pushed the United States Sentencing Commission to enhance the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provisions for fraud and related offenses. Even before the adoption of the Act, the Commission had increased the potential punishment for white collar crimes by amending the loss table for fraud offenses. These two steps played a key role in the increased sentences imposed on defendants convicted for their role in corporate crimes, such as Bernie Ebbers (twenty-five years) and John Rigas (fifteen years). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act marked a change in the sentencing atmospherics for corporate crime that propelled judges to give out sentences that were unthinkable even five years earlier.
This article considers how the Sarbanes-Oxley Act changed the approach to sentencing of white collar defendants involved in corporate crimes. It uses a hypothetical case to illustrate how sentences under the Guidelines have tripled from what they would have been just a few years earlier. It then looks at the recent Supreme Court decision in Gall v. United States that emphasized the discretion federal judges have even under the Sentencing Guidelines to shape sentences that reflect the individual circumstances of the defendant. The change in sentencing created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act may well be abating in the new era of discretion fostered by the Supreme Court.
Keywords: Sentencing, White Collar Crime, Sarbanes-Oxley Act
JEL Classification: K14, K42
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Henning, Peter J., The Changing Atmospherics of Corporate Crime Sentencing in the Post Sarbanes-Oxley Act Era. Wayne State University Law School Research Paper No. 08-09; Journal of Business and Technology Law, Vol. 3, No. 2, March 18, 2008. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1118067