Case Summary
The case under analysis revolves around “fraud charges against four former SMF Energy Corp. officers”. (SEC Charges Former Officers of SMF Energy With Fraud, n.d., para. 1). The problem is that some former officials of SMF Energy Corp. used their power to align the unfair schemes that helped them to obtain some extra benefits. It means that they “inflated SMF’s revenues through a fraudulent billing scheme” (SEC Charges Former Officers of SMF Energy With Fraud, n.d., para. 2).
SEC (security and Exchange Commission) states that SMF overbilled some customers by charging for fuel that was not delivered (Lincoff, 2015). The given scheme could be characterized as unfair and it obviously helped the company to obtain extra benefits. The overbilling began in 2004 (Gorman, 2015) and it was used by the company.
However, it triggered the growth of the dissatisfaction among the customers and led to the trial. Additionally, the problem became more complicated because of the announcement of the SMFs bankruptcy because of the fall of its revenues. Thus, it should also be said that the main figurants of this case deny their fault, saying that there were no unfair schemes used by SMF and all their actions could be characterized as legal as they acted within the law.
Case analysis
With this in mind, analyzing the given case, it is possible to outline several important points. First of all, it should be said that the situation is complicated by the theoretical bankruptcy of the company. Additionally, the agents involved in the conflict have their own perspectives on the given situation and try to protect their interests. Thus, customers like USPS and some other companies were overbilled and obviously had some losses (Lincoff, 2015). It means that they might have the right to strive for the compensation for loss from the company or the former officers of SMF. At the same time, these very officers also have the right to protect themselves and prove the fact that all actions of the company were fair and organized in accordance with the existing law.
It should be said that there are several possible variants of the development of the given situation. However, under existing conditions, the punishment provided for the officials of the company seems to be the most appropriate variant. The analysis of the companys financial activity could help to make the given situation clearer and help to outline the main aspects of the given fraud. One could also predict that great impact that this case might have on the officials of the company. Usage of the unfair scheme in order to obtain some extra benefits could be taken as the breach of the law and the compensation of losses will be not the only punishment provided to them.
Conclusion
In general, describing the given case, it is possible to make a certain conclusion and share the personal opinion. It should be said that unfortunately the cases of this sort are not rare nowadays. Trying to obtain some extra benefits, companies and their officials prefer to use schemes that will be able to guarantee some extra incomes. Very often these schemes are illegal and unethical. However, the greed makes people use them and deceive customers and partners. That is why, companies that prefer to adhere to this sort of schemes, should be punished and their actions must be analyzed in order to understand the mechanism and change the law for some other organizations not to use the same pattern.
References
Gorman, A. (2015). Financial Fraud: An SEC Staple?. Web.
Lincoff, N. (2015). SEC charges former SMF Energy officers with fraud; alleged victims included U.S. Postal Service. South Florida Business Journal. Web.
SEC Charges Former Officers of SMF Energy With Fraud. (n.d.). Web.