why should a newborn suffer if he/she has not committed a crime, that was taken into consideration given she is the mother of the newborn...
Harvard graduate lost $19 million in forex trading out of $23 million raised
- Thread starter JSOP
- Start date
I don't understand how can people trusted her with their money? she got a psychology degree, not even a financial /business one, even most people with these degrees can't do well in the world of trading; and she is relatively young and not having a track record. Probably that is why her most clients are friends and relatives.
Looks like her friends, family and former Harvard classmates turned her in.
Just as funny...
Lets see, Judge Abrams seemed upset about Park's privileged background but then only sentence her to 3 years. Most likely Park will be out for good behaviour to take care of her child in about 1 1/2 years...
I've seen this sad story before and it wasn't Madoff. Park's is very lucky, prisons are rampant with Covid-19. I wouldn't be surprise if she pushed for a speedy trial to ensure her conviction occurred during this Pandemic and during her pregnancy...before a vaccine was developed so that she'll get a more lenient sentence.
wrbtrader
I blame Harvard. My community college teaches not to put all your eggs in one basket, specially if your investment guru is a psychologist!!
Madoff lost what, 20 billion? But for easy math, 1 billion. That is 50 times more than 20 MM. So they got equal years if you count by lost money. But law doesn't actually work that way.
I bet many of you have heard of 'female privilege' and 'the future is female'.
If they keep on giving light sentences to females, it encourages more of them to commit fraud. On the other hand, more investors will stay away from female fund managers.
If they keep on giving light sentences to females, it encourages more of them to commit fraud. On the other hand, more investors will stay away from female fund managers.
I am going to play advocatus diaboli here.
By giving her a short sentence, she actually gets punished more. After all she screwed family and friends. So she has to live with them and the shame and possible retribution.
If she comes out of prison 20 years later, half of the relatives could be dead. So she gets no shame, nicely tucked away in a prison. Now if a victim wants to sue or harm her, she will be out soon.
They will never get their money back anyway. The broad public wasn't harmed, so why should we the taxpayer pay for an extended punishment? In prison she earns like 50 cents per hour? So it would take a while when she can pay the victims back. On the other hand outside if she earns anything, 70% or so can be taken away for payments...
By giving her a short sentence, she actually gets punished more. After all she screwed family and friends. So she has to live with them and the shame and possible retribution.
If she comes out of prison 20 years later, half of the relatives could be dead. So she gets no shame, nicely tucked away in a prison. Now if a victim wants to sue or harm her, she will be out soon.
They will never get their money back anyway. The broad public wasn't harmed, so why should we the taxpayer pay for an extended punishment? In prison she earns like 50 cents per hour? So it would take a while when she can pay the victims back. On the other hand outside if she earns anything, 70% or so can be taken away for payments...
Last edited:
I can see that you are a huge sympathy for women. The internet has a term for that.
Why only this particular woman? You should sympathize all criminals.
Why should all her victims suffer because she chose to get ahead defrauding others?