Shopping-Addicted Embezzler Skirts Jail
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:18 PM

Ms. Elizabeth Roach has had quite a ride through the Federal court system so far. The long-time Vice Squad reader will recall that Ms. Roach is an oniomaniac -- a shopping addict. Between her shopping mania and her depression, well, she somehow ended up embezzling $240,000 from her employer. The trial judge felt sympathy, and departed downward from the sentencing guidelines (calling for at least a year of jail) via some home confinement, probation, restitution, and work release. The prosecution appealed the downward departure, and a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the sympathy was misplaced. On remand, Ms. Roach's sentence of a year in prison complied with the guidelines. Another appeal ensued -- this one from the defense -- but then the Supreme Court ruled that those pesky guidelines were only advisory, not mandatory. Yesterday saw the unveiling of what is likely to be the final chapter, as today's Chicago Tribune reports:

Elizabeth Roach was sentenced for a third time Monday for the same offense, averting prison for stealing nearly $250,000 from her employer to pay for a shopping addiction.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly sentenced Roach to 5 years' probation in large part so she could continue to undergo psychiatric treatment that has helped her with chronic depression and compulsive shopping.

The judge also ordered that she serve 3 months in work release followed by 9 months of home confinement.

Roach, 51, of Chicago has already paid more than $270,000 in fines and restitution.

Roach's lawyer, Jeffrey Steinback, said his client was relieved by the probation sentence and that the prosecution appears to be finally concluded.

Labels: oniomania, Supreme Court

 
Life is More-or-Less Elsewhere, Except for Shopaholics
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:59 PM

Vice Squad's guest blogging at Crescat continues apace, with this
contribution concerning, yes, searches, this one involving roadblocks.

Over at Overlawyered, there's a post on how voluntary gambling
bans have proven at times to be porous, leading to, yes, lawsuits
from compulsive gamblers.

The post below is another one that I "guested" for CS (in a slightly different
form), entitled "Oniomania".....

....No, it has nothing to do with onions -- it's just a fancy word for "shopaholism,"
and the electronic edition of the Chicago Tribune has an article up (here,
registration required) about the affliction (without the nifty terminology, alas). A sample:

"Much like those addicted to drugs or alcohol, shopaholics experience withdrawal
symptoms such as irritability, depression and loss of control.

They also deny they have a problem, claiming it's normal to have 50 pairs of pants
in the closet with sales tags still attached. In addition, some shopaholics suffer
blackouts the way alcoholics do, [Indiana University addiction researcher Ruth] Engs
said. They will return home not remembering how much they bought or what's in
the shopping bags they carry.

And, as with other addictions, there may be an effort to conceal the problem."


In a Chicago case from a couple years back, Ms. Elizabeth Roach pleaded guilty to a
charge stemming from her embezzling more than $240,000 from her employer. The
embezzled money fueled shopping trips. The trial judge was more lenient to Ms. Roach
than the 12 to 18 months in prison (among other punishments) called for by federal
sentencing guidelines: along with a fine and restitution, he imposed six months of
home confinement and six weeks of work release rather than a prison term. The judge
noted that the embezzlement was motivated by compulsive shopping and depression.

The government appealed the downward departure from the sentencing guidelines,
and a three-judge federal appeals panel found the trial judge’s leniency misplaced
(in United States v. Roach (2002), 296 F.3d 565). They remanded the case back to the
original judge for resentencing; he reluctantly complied, ordering Ms. Roach to spend
12 months in prison, though that sentence is stayed pending appeal. Neither
depression nor oniomania was accepted by the appeals panel as a valid reason for
reducing penalties for embezzlement. A defendant would have even less hope for
leniency for embezzlement motivated by the need for money to feed a heroin or
cocaine addiction: the federal sentencing guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 available
here) explicitly note that, while significantly reduced mental capacity could justify
a "downward departure" from the prescribed punishment, this is not the case if
"the impairment was caused by the defendant’s voluntary use of drugs or other
intoxicants."

Labels: Crescat, oniomania, search, solipsism