National Lampoon CEO gets 50 years for $200 million swindle


An Indiana financier and former chief executive of National Lampoon convicted of swindling investors out of about $200 million was sentenced Friday to 50 years in prison.

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson sentenced Timothy Durham. Two of Durham’s associates, James Cochran and Rick Snow, were to be sentenced later Friday.

A jury in June found the three men guilty of securities fraud and conspiracy. It also convicted Durham, a major Indiana Republican Party donor who resigned his post at National Lampoon in January, of 10 counts of wire fraud, while Cochran and Snow were convicted on some of those counts.

Prosecutors have said the three stripped Akron, Ohio-based Fair Finance of its assets and used the money to buy mansions, classic cars and other luxury items and to keep another of Durham’s company afloat. The men were convicted of operating an elaborate Ponzi scheme to hide the company’s depleted condition from regulators and investors, many of whom were elderly…

U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett said none of the three has shown remorse for their crimes and each deserved the life sentence recommended in a probation report.

“Durham has earned a place among the greediest, most selfish and remorseless of criminals,” Hogsett wrote in a sentencing memorandum earlier this week…

The charges against Durham led several GOP politicians, including Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, to return hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions sought by Fair Finance’s bankruptcy trustee.

Any similarity to Bain Capital and other bastions of bullcrap is strictly coincidental. If you believe.

5 thoughts on “National Lampoon CEO gets 50 years for $200 million swindle

  1. List of X says:

    I don’t think there are any similarities with Bain. Unlike Fair Finance, Bain destroyed other companies. Unlike Fair Finance, Bain put thousands of people out of their jobs to squeeze more money to its investors. And most importantly, unlike Fair Finance, what Bain does is completely legal.

      • List of X says:

        Just and unjust are too subjective, unfortunately. It’s just a matter of finding a justification for your actions, and if someone tries hard enough, it’s possible to find justification for anything. But at least if in Fair Finance case there is a law making this practice illegal, the law only provides tax breaks for the Bain’s practice.

        • moss says:

          Maybe subjective in the short term. From what I read here, I see more of an attempt to evaluate “just” in terms of history and class, what it means to future values – in the best way.

        • keaneo says:

          Subjective works just fine for me. While politicians and pundits argue the niceties and details of corporate law – working folks get the short end of the stick regardless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s