None of us are above the law. Glad to hear that he actually received jail time and needs to pay back.

Don't be too sure this man will actually see much or any of this jail time. He had the money to afford lawyers, he has the money to pay this fine, and it does not mention if he actually paid those payroll taxes back to the government. Obviously there was some type of deal, otherwise he would have gotten a much stiffer jail sentence, like the average joe would.

In most of these cases, he will either go to a minimum security "country club" type of facilitiy because it is a 'white collar" crime, and they will let him out early on good behavior.

You better believe his law team is working on an appeal of his "sentence" as we write this, and if he does pay this fine, they will use that fact as an arguement for reducing his prison and ask that he go straight to home confinement.

This is not over by a long shot. If you have money in this country, you can buy your way out of just about anything, provided you have a good lawyer, good references, and good connections. What happens now will be a lot of behind the scenes legal work. So, I don't think this man is going to suffer much, if at all.

The U.S. legal system gave a harder sentence for a white collar crime involving payroll tax money than the Commonwealth of VA did to a person who commited a felony level assault and battery. A felony level assault and battery committed in Alexandria was given a plea bargain deal for his guilty plea, a sentence of one year in jail...(he only had to serve 1/3 of the sentence due to being a "first time offender before the court", although he had been violent with other women, too afraid to prosecute). He only had to serve 8 weeks in jail rather than the already reduced time of 4 months, because of his "good behavior" while in jail. Also, while the assailant was was out on bail, he continued to stalk his victim. The stalking sentence ALONE would have been 2 months in jail, and that added to the one year sentence, would have meant time in the penitentiary, not the local jail.
A premeditated crime of violence, an unprovoked brutal beating of a business woman whom he assaulted and battered, rendered unconscious...and continued to beat and kick while she was totally defenseless, was only made to serve 8 weeks in a city jail.
It seems that white collar crime, that is non-violent, in this case, has been given a more severe jail sentencing than truly horrific beatings of female victims in the City of Alexandria. How does it benefit the community to jail non-violent people who commit monetary crimes, when jails release the truly violent people who NEED to be there?

Mary, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I would venture a guess that the taxpayer money used to prosecute the white collar criminal was far more than the actual offense itself. Another case of putting taxpayer dollars to the wrong use.

Dave, are you saying that prosecuting a man who steals tax money withheld from his employees should not be prosecuted?? Sorry, he is NO DIFFERENT than a bank robber, but without a dangerous weapon. On the other hand, a former mayor of Washington didn't pay his taxes for years on end and never served a day in jail for it. Justice?

No, I'm not saying he shouldn't be prosecuted at all. What I'm saying is that by the time you throw in prosecuting this man, his prison time, etc. you have probably surpassed the $944k he stole or are darn close to it. I'm just saying there has to be a better way.

You are making assumptions about this man and his character. You couldn't be farther from the truth. The justice system allows you to know only so much of the story, and so from that you draw your conclusions. Anyone who has been in the court system will tell you that pleas do not necessarily represent the truth.

If you want an example of softball reporting, look at Connection Newspapers' story on the event at http://bit.ly/o42GOG . That story made Labovitz sound as if he is the cousin of Mother Teresa.

Taxes are a cost of doing business. If you cannot afford to pay your payroll taxes, then the business is not healthy and is not sustainable, meaning either the business model is broken or the business is failing. Both will result in "having to close the doors and add more people to the scoes of unemployed".

It's hard to accept that it was just "hard times" since the actions were accumulated from 2002 through 2008, that's not just a blip on the radar screen due to unfortunate events; rather seems to be systematic...not necessarily fraud or stealing, no. A lot of businesses were crippled after 9/11, but for him to use that as the start of the shortfall in funds is ignoring the trend of all paper media. It's not indicative of a short-term downfall in ability to pay, but indicative of a business model failing, and that should have been addressed well before this time. The Justice Department can't let everybody off the hook because they fall on hard times, otherwise a lot of folks wouldn't be paying income tax either.

Well said, Wien.

Works for me, Ruth.

well, Ruth! Now you are channeling Suze Orman!