Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Ebbers Behind Bars
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 5 page paper briefly considers the WorldCom scandal, and discusses the question of whether or not Bernard Ebbers’ sentence was fair, or if he should have gone to jail at all. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVEbbers.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
less than criminal, though former WorldCom employees disagree. This paper briefly discusses the case, and then considers the question of whether or not Ebbers should have gone to jail, and
if so, for how long. Discussion Ebbers defense of his actions was ignorance: he claimed not to know what other important WorldCom executives were doing; specifically, he claimed he remained
ignorant of the fact that Scott Sullivan, former Chief Financial Officer of WorldCom, was cooking the books (Belson, 2005). Reid H. Weingarten, Ebbers lead defense lawyer, said "it was Mr.
Ebberss deputies who carried out the $11 billion fraud" (Belson, 2005). Weingarten admitted that "Ebbers was CEO and in that sense, he is responsible for WorldComs performance, both is rise
and its downfall (Belson, 2005). Despite this, Weingarten argued that Ebbers shouldnt be convicted since many other people at the company were tricked by Scott Sullivan (Belson, 2005). Weingartens defense
rests largely on his attempts to discredit Scott Sullivan (Belson, 2005). Weingarten spent hours "picking apart" the case against Ebbers; he spent much of his effort trying to prove that
Ebbers was just one of many people at WorldCom who was fooled by Sullivan (Belson, 2005). Unfortunately for the defense, Sullivan is a prosecution witness and is "crucial to the
prosecutions case," since he is the only witness who said that "he spoke directly to Mr. Ebbers about the fraud, and that Mr. Ebbers ordered him to proceed with it"
(Belson, 2005). Sullivan is also facing a 25-year prison term for his part in the fraud; critics accuse his of testifying as he did in order to reduce his sentence
(Belson, 2005). Weingarten referred to Sullivan as the "chief cook and bottle washer and the snitch and star witness" in an attempt to discredit him; he said, moreover, that Sullivans
...