To the Editor:

Re “2 Enron Chiefs Are Convicted in Fraud and Conspiracy Trial” (front page, May 26):

With the guilty verdicts of Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling, some may be tempted to say, “See, the system works.” But their convictions are poor consolation for the savings and pensions that were lost and for the damage that their corporate cowboyism did to our entire system.

We should not let this successful prosecution obscure the fact that our regulatory systems failed repeatedly to catch and correct criminal and inappropriate corporate accounting, stock manipulation and insider trading while it was happening, not only at Enron, but also at WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco and other companies.

In all of these cases, neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the big auditing firms, nor the Financial Accounting Standards Board, nor the other federal and state agencies charged with this regulatory role performed creditably.

So while we might take some solace that a whiff of justice is in the air, until changes are made by which the regulatory system provides some true protection before the offending firms either collapse or go into bankruptcy, we have little to cheer about.

Robert A. Palgon
Fremont, Calif., May 26, 2006

•To the Editor:

While there is some superficial satisfaction in the Enron verdict, the prosecution also represents an ultimately counterproductive scapegoating tendency.

Most white-collar fraud is not committed by “corporate kingpins”; it is perpetrated by midlevel employees who make less than a year’s salary in the process.

Conversely, many of the recent high-profile white-collar cases — Martha Stewart is the best example — do not even involve clear violations of federal fraud and securities laws. Cases like these are hard to explain not only to juries, but also to lawyers and businessmen, because they do not involve clear applications of existing law.

If the law is not clear and consistently applied, prosecutions will not have the appropriate deterrent effect. Prosecutors should be encouraged to apply federal laws in a consistent manner, not simply to pursue big names in the hopes of making headlines.

Sarah J. Baumgartel
New York, May 26, 2006
The writer is a lawyer.

•To the Editor:

“Verdict on an Era” (news analysis, May 26) says that the Enron trial was in fact an indictment of the era of corporate madness that swept over certain American businesses in the late 1990’s.

In a wider sense, however, it is a broader indictment of the doctrine of American economic laissez-faire, which gained currency with the ascendancy of the Reagan administration in the 1980’s and spawned an entire generation of neoconservatism.

The premise was that the free market was by its very structure infallible, that the kind of corruption and thievery demonstrated in the Enron case would be impossible because competitive forces would organically root out inefficient companies. Enron is the prime example of the failure of this doctrine.

It is time to recognize that allowing the free market to “self-regulate” industries is indeed madness. The free market does not work when it is overrun by crooks.

Vigorous government regulation is needed to avoid more Enrons and to keep the playing field level for the vast majority of private businesses that conduct their affairs honestly.

Kent K. Gordis
Brooklyn, May 26, 2006

•To the Editor:

The rise and fall of Enron’s emperors represent the triumph of public protest against the banality of avarice and the abuse of corporate power. It is not, however, the end of hubris.

It’s time for the corporate world to demystify the predatory C.E.O. culture that has poisoned civility in all aspects of life.

Alas, this will not happen. We refuse to learn from history, and that’s a tragedy.

Brij Mohan
Baton Rouge, La., May 26, 2006

•To the Editor:

Re “And Justice for All” (editorial, May 26):

Perhaps an appropriate punishment for Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling, the convicted former Enron chief executives, would be mandatory assistance for those companies that must now struggle to meet the onerous requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

This law was passed by Congress in the wake of the high-profile accounting scandals of the 1990’s and early 2000’s — most notably at Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia and HealthSouth — that cost employees and shareholders billions of dollars.

But through no fault of their own, many well-run and ethical public companies have been put on the defensive, and both capital and resources have been strained to meet complex compliance requirements whose benefits are much debated.

These requirements are especially felt among smaller businesses with already thin margins.

In the spirit of victims’ rights, maybe we could consider this “business community” service.

Dave Sandhusen
Montclair, N.J., May 26, 2006
The writer is a certified public accountant.