Justice and the E.F. Hutton Case

In his letter to The Times Trott attempts in a curious way to justify the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute individuals in the E.F. Hutton fraud case. He notes that the individual swindlers “were not lining their own pockets,” which suggests that the fictitious corporate entity, alone, was culpable, rather than the individuals comprising it.

If the individuals’ alleged lack of direct profitability insulates them from prosecution, one could ask why a burglar, caught in the commission of his crime and thus deprived of any direct benefit, should be held criminally responsible.

Hutton’s fraudulent scheme was widespread and insidious. It reflected the conscious acts and policy decisions of its individual operators. The crimes and their perpetrators are very real, unlike the fictitious corporation to which the Justice Department is content to ascribe criminal responsibility.

Trott then seems to protest too much, by referring to other totally unrelated and irrelevant instances in which Justice has in fact pursued individual defendants, suggesting that despite the Hutton case, they really are against white-collar crime.

The current president of Hutton is a brother-in-law of Vice President George Bush. One has to wonder if that fact is in any way related to the Administration’s decision against prosecuting individuals.

Of all Cabinet departments, the Justice Department must be held to a standard of accountability, with fairness and real justice. The Hutton case and Trott’s wimpy apologia reflect anything but that.

ROBERT S. WHITE

Torrance