Nick Leeson — The Implications Now He Has Been Sentenced
| Pages | 368-369 |
| Published date | 01 February 1996 |
| Date | 01 February 1996 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025738 |
| Author | Sheilagh Davies |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 3 No. 4 — Fraud
Nick Leeson — The Implications Now He Has Been
Sentenced
Sheilagh Davies
As Nick Leeson begins his six-and-a-half-year sen-
tence in Singapore the question must be asked —
is this really the end of the road or is there greater
fallout to come? The two most crucial things to
emerge from months of press coverage interviews
and negotiation are (1) the status given to the
criminal and (2) the impact on plea bargaining; of
the two perhaps the first matter is the more inter-
esting, but the implications must be considered.
By his own admission Nick Leeson is a crimi-
nal.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud and
forgery yet the uninitiated would be forgiven for
believing he is some sort of hero. Inevitably the
facts behind the acts that brought about the down-
fall of an old and respected merchant bank must
excite huge media interest but that interest has
been a vehicle for Leeson to air his claim that he is
a victim. Yet just because there may not have been
adequate regulation or control the perpetrator of a
fraud of such stellar proportions cannot be
absolved from his responsibility. Is it right that this
man can use and manipulate the media to put
across his case long before it comes to court? To
what extent should the law allow this to happen
when the accused has only his own interests to
serve? Should he be paid for any interviews he
gives? Should his wife finance her visits to him by
making deals with the press? He stands to receive
Page 368
To continue reading
Request your trial