ShareThis Page

How crime pays

| Thursday, April 23, 2015, 8:55 p.m.

The Associated Press recently reported that former state Rep. Mike Veon could soon be released from prison. He was sentenced to six to 14 years in the Bonusgate scheme and would serve less than half of the lower end of the sentence guidelines.

This does not seem like justice or a real deterrent to political crimes that appear in the headlines on a weekly basis.

In 2013, Veon was to pay $219,000 in restitution and paid only $1,233. Did Veon cash out on a lump-sum pension before going to prison without the court seizing it for restitution?

Similarly, former state Rep. John Perzel was convicted of corruption, sentenced to two-and-a-half to five years in prison and court-ordered to repay $1 million in restitution.

Perzel took his $203,000 pension that the court did not seize for restitution. Now released, he is sitting on this bankrolled pension and in his Philadelphia home that the court didn't seize for restitution.

State court documents show Perzel's pension was not seized and he has paid only $960 of the $1 million court-ordered restitution! They also show that his restitution payment is just $75 a month. This will take him 1,111 years to repay.

This illustrates that court orders are just for news-headline fluff and crime does pay.

Gary J. English

Penn Hills

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.