Richard Monroe Harkless, the mastermind of a $35 million Ponzi scheme that took in about 700 investors in Southern California, was sentenced to 100 years in prison on Monday. That’s right: 100 years. Bernie Madoff, who ran a $65 billion operation, is facing 150 years.
It’s a long sentence but that’s not what I find most remarkable about Harkless. During his trial, he said that his problem was a failed business model. Acting as his own attorney, he claimed the sales agents who worked for him promised investors returns of up to 14% without his knowledge. He said he had no regrets and would make the same decisions again, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Harkless isn’t the first con artist to proclaim his innocence and blame his staff. And I’m sure he won’t be the last. But, really, is there a part of him that thinks he’s fooling anyone? In the face of all the evidence that’s putting him behind bars for 100 years, why doesn’t the 65-year-old just ‘fess up? The answer might be in the strange assertion that he wouldn’t change a thing. Maybe he has an overpowering need to seem like a man in control — a man in charge. Every con artist is concerned with how others perceive him; that’s the whole trick, to make people trust you and feel that you alone can make them rich. But these guys who deny what they’ve done: maybe they have some deeper need for approval.
A few members of the Hall of Infamy have proclaimed their innocence. From the courtroom and their prison cells, they’ve found ways to deflect their crimes. Richard Scrushy, the founder and CEO of Health South, blamed it on people who worked for him. Some of those people testified against him and described his micromanaging style; this was a CEO who wanted to approve what was being served in the cafeteria and who made hiring and firing decisions in a company that employed 50,000 people. And he overlooked a little thing like a $2.7 billion fraud?
John Rigas swore he was innocent of wrongdoing – in contrast to the SEC director who said he ran “one of the most complicated and egregious financial frauds committed at a public company.” He blamed the trial (and those of his sons) on a sinister plot by the company’s employees to bring the Rigas family down. It was, his attorney said, a case of “Rigas-cide.” (That was not such a terrific strategy for the defense.)
What do you make of the con artist who maintains his innocence? Why do you think he’s doing it? Does it make him any more or less despicable? Would Bernie Madoff be even more reviled if he said he did nothing wrong?
Comments (1)