Interesting, but I still find it all very confusing.
Was Bales still working for the company or not?
Was he just a worker bee so the press gets to attach it to him? (you know, everyone who worked at Enron is guilty as sin)
Still, there’s no clarification as to who exactly levied the $1.5 million judgement or whether it’s even legally binding.
The analysis is correct regarding Bales’ financial history and its effects on his security clearance. He would have probable issues getting a TS clearance, but Secret isn’t a problem. You don’t need TS for a LOOONG time in the Infantry.
Still, if it was a legally binding judgement, where was the enforcement? That wouldn’t be on the military background check; that would be on the levying body and appropriate enforcement officials.
That's what I think.
Bales was small potatoes, he was probably named in the judgement because he made the initial "boiler room" call. I get the impression he was nothing more than a telemarketer reading a script.
The other guys named, the owners and principals of the firms, those guys had the deep pockets.
Not everyone at Enron was guilty. I'm sure you already know that. In this case Bales was registered as a Series 7 employee without which he would have been unable to even speak about stock issues.
Series 7 is intensive ethics training with basics about stock settlement, margins violations, etc. When something like this happens, the Series 7 people can be considered liable. Going higher [and I am also a Series 24 General Securities principal] the culpability becomes more intense. Even more so for a Financial Securities Principal and a Compliance Officer.
I have never heard of a non-registered employee [like Enron peeps] ever being held accountable in these instances.
Still, there’s no clarification as to who exactly levied the $1.5 million judgement or whether it’s even legally binding.
The arbitrator levied the judgement. It should be legally binding.