NYC councilman sentenced to 5 years prison for embezzling $1M from taxpayers
9:10 pm - 01/25/2013
A few months ago, former Bronx City Councilman Larry Seabrook, whom Tom Robbins once called a "serial fraudster," was taken to court on an assortment of embezzlement charges. Throughout his tenure, he had siphoned nearly one million dollars worth in taxpayer dollars into the pockets of him and his family; the money was spent on vacationing, fat salaries and to pay bills of luxury. In order to do so, Seabrook forged government expense receipts - one of which included a $7 bagel changed to a $177 bagel.
For this reason, Seabrook was sentenced yesterday in court to five years in state prison. On top of that, he'll be forced to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and forfeitures. Also, this isn't the first time Seabrook has mean to court: two years ago, he was convicted of similar charges but authorities were unable to collect enough evidence to sentence him. Therefore, the result was a mistrial.
This time around, he wasn't so lucky.
But, according to DOI Comissioner Rose Gill Hearn, it was about damn time:
Seabrook will have to submit himself to the authorities by early March. That gives him plenty of time to eat a few cheap bagels.
source: the Village Voice
really an excuse to use the bagel tag
For this reason, Seabrook was sentenced yesterday in court to five years in state prison. On top of that, he'll be forced to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and forfeitures. Also, this isn't the first time Seabrook has mean to court: two years ago, he was convicted of similar charges but authorities were unable to collect enough evidence to sentence him. Therefore, the result was a mistrial.
This time around, he wasn't so lucky.
But, according to DOI Comissioner Rose Gill Hearn, it was about damn time:
"Larry Seabrook diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public till into the pockets of his favored cronies. Today, he is a convicted felon, stripped of his City Council position, who must serve prison time. His sentence punctuates a powerful message that abusing government power to steal has serious consequences.."
Seabrook will have to submit himself to the authorities by early March. That gives him plenty of time to eat a few cheap bagels.
source: the Village Voice
really an excuse to use the bagel tag
A breakfast sandwich on a bagel here is about $7 though.
My second thought: Holy shit, WE HAVE A BAGEL TAG?!
I'm not saying it's not fucked up that the woman got a longer prison sentence than this douchebag, I'm just saying that our legal system really doesn't give a fuck if you pay something back or not.
I'm sorry but no shit Sherlock. I don't need a mini-lesson on how theft "doesn't pay." Haha. Whether or not she paid it back wasn't the point nor that she was sentenced to jail time. Those two weren't my points.
The fact that she got a long prison sentence than someone who intentionally sought to rip off the gov't was the point.
Also, she got a lesser prison sentence than he did. The time that the two of them will actually spend incarcerated... who knows.
Edited at 2013-01-27 05:49 am (UTC)
As for her, she had extenuating circumstances. Circumstances are allowed to influence decisions in terms of sentences and what not. You can kill someone in self-defense. You won't get immediately sent to the gas chamber. Needing to feed your children is something most people can sympathize with. This was food stamp money. It was to feed her children.
And, please, don't tell me the gov't doesn't care and all crimes are the same or whatever because it apparently does. Else the one who intentionally ripped off the gov't for his own greed would've gotten way more time.
My point was that her paying it back isn't actually relevant. They both defrauded their government, got caught, and are now paying for it.
Circumstances can and do influence sentencing, and unfortunately a large part of that is race and affluence. Criminal record also heavily influences sentencing as well, though. Then there are mandatory minimum sentences, which fuck everyone.
It was an aside and not my point at all so we'll just be talking in circles over this. It was a "she did WAY less AND ..." but that ... wasn't my point. I realize the gov't doesn't give a shit. I'm all too aware of this fact.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. :)