Judge: Parish deserved long prison termThe Post and Courier
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Al Parish Convicted economist Al Parish deserved his 24-year prison sentence because he took advantage of people he'd known for years and didn't act out of financial necessity or after a life of neglect, "unlike many criminal defendants," the sentencing judge wrote Wednesday. Additionally, Chief Judge David Norton said Parish continued to ruin lives even after he knew his investment world was coming to an end. "Although (the) defendant might have begun his scheme with good intentions, he encouraged victims to invest large sums of money long after he knew his scheme would collapse," the judge said. Norton's comments came in a sentencing memorandum federal judges file after a defendant is sentenced. It explains the judge's legal logic, reasoning and applicable law. Parish was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission as early as February 2007 but was still accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest, Norton said. Among his last victims were a co-worker and the elderly. "Those stories undercut defendant's contention that he never intended to harm his victims," wrote Norton, who called Parish "a confidence man" who used his stature in the community, favorable media coverage and his Christianity "to build trust with existing and prospective investors." The sentence of 24 years and four months was at the lower end of the sentencing guidelines. The high end was up to 30 years. Norton said he went with the lower number "because it is sufficient but not greater than necessary" to accomplish justice and promote respect for the law. Parish's defense attorney, Andy Savage, had argued the crime warranted a much less severe prison term β as little as in the six-year range β which "would give him some glimmer of hope" of outliving his term of imprisonment. Savage has said he will file an appeal of the sentence, saying it was disproportionate to similar fraud cases. Parish, a former economist at Charleston Southern University, last month was sentenced to federal prison after pleading guilty to a massive case of fraud. Nearly 600 people lost up to $66 million turned over to Parish and his private investment "pools." Investigators cataloguing what was left of Parish's empire likely will recover between $9 million and $15 million for the investors. However, the hunt to secure those assets already has cost more than $2 million. Norton also ordered Parish to pay restitution of $66.8 million, though he did not appear confident the debt would ever be settled. "Of course, unless defendant wins the Powerball lottery, it will be impossible for him to make restitution in this amount," Norton wrote. Reach Schuyler Kropf at 937-5551, or skropf@postandcourier.com. Reach Kyle Stock at 937-5763 or kstock@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 9 comment(s)
Posted by CharlestonJim on July 10, 2008 at 2:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We all make mistakes, but who gives their life savings to a 400 pound man dressed like Elton John? Who invests their money with someone they don't do research on? Who expects to get back 30-40-50% a year; that right there tells you something is wrong. He would have millions of investers and billions of dollars to invest if that were true. Were did these investers think their money was at? Did he provide statements that showed the money was in funds, bonds, or stocks, or did he just tell them it was invested? Did "his friends" think he aquired all of his toys and cars, houses, etc from his teaching job at a small local non-profit Christian supported college? I feel for those who were robbed. I don't want it to happen to me. But there are many lessons to be learned from this. At least when you use FAs at Bank of America and South Carolina Bank and Trust, etc, you know they work under the crushing weight of the FDIC, SEC, and the IRS among others. To just write your friend or "some guy" a check and expect huge returns tell me people don't watch enough television or were blinded by the color of the man's shirts.
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 10, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would be careful about those "financial advisors" at the banks though. They are mainly salesmen who operate under the "suitability" instead of "fiduciary" banner. This is a huge difference. For everyone who does not know this MAJOR difference research it before you work with a financial advisor. It will mean a whole lot if you lose a lot of money and try to get it back. Most "financial advisors" are not financial advisors. Be wary of people who mention specific investments or companies in the early dealing with clients. They may have hidden agenda's.
FDIC is an insurance company, you mean FINRA.
P.S: These people mainly lost their money because they were greedy. If you didn't know that 30%+ was EXTREMELY risky you are an idiot and I feel no sympathy towards you. Please sleep with a helmet on. Treasury securities are considered "riskless" and pay around 3.5%. Tell you something.
Posted by Neponset on July 10, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fisc..
You are correct about financial advisors - if they were that good they wouldn't be working for some bank etc.
I prefer to make my own mistakes. One of which was owning some bank stocks.
Posted by SuzieQJones on July 10, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a misconception that Parish offered 30-40% returns. Most of his victims thought they were earning around 9%. I don't know where these rumors came from, but they are not correct. It is refreshing that the judge handed down this sentence. Even though Andy Savage is appealing on Parish's behalf, I am hopeful that the sentence will stand. Well done, Judge Norton!
Posted by berthelot on July 10, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He probably could have gotten away with it if only he had kept enough cash on hand to pay the people that wanted their interest payments. He, like many small banks (which is essentially what he had) was caught with his purple studded silk pants down in an upside down market. Maybe a few less toys and he could still be eating his steak with a side of steak five meals a day... but he is a crook, and even worse, a crook who got caught. Greed will bring down many people. He had it coming.
Posted by drp7773 on July 10, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After all this, the judge gives him the lower end of the sentence again another joke of a judge. I bet if he was scammed who ever the judge was would have gotten a call from this judge to throw the book at him. 66 million and he gets the lower end, wonder what he would have gotten if he abused an animal instead of older people and friends.
Posted by abitskeptical on July 10, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The judge's reasons for giving the lower end of the recommended sentence were logical in this case.
Parish, at his age & health, basically received a life sentence. Adding to that doesn't serve the citizens, the system, or justice any more efficiently or justly.
If Parish was a healthy 25 or 30 year old, I agree that the max would have been more appropriate.
Posted by southerngirl45 on July 10, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ANOTHER STORY THE POST NEEDS TO LET REST.ECONOBUG NEEDS TO ROT IN JAIL FOR WHAT HE DID TO THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE! NOW I'M HEARING ANDY SAVAGE WANTS HIM TO BE ON "HOUSE ARREST"I USED TO THINK SAVAGE WAS A PRETTY GOOD PERSON, BUT HAVE YOU NOTICED SOME OF THE LOWLIFE HE DEFENDS?WATCH THE ELEVEN O'CLOCK NEWS ON CHANNEL 4 TO SEE THE REPORT!
Posted by wonderdog on July 10, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Isn't it interesting that he developed sudden amnesia when he was arrested, and that, as he approached his sentencing, his health became an issue? His health wasn't a problem for him when he was robbing people. How stupid does he think everyone is?