Harry Jaffe, The Examiner
2008-07-30 07:00:00.0
Current rank: Not ranked

WASHINGTON -

If you expect members of the ring of rip-off artists who stole $48 million from the D.C. tax department to spend big time behind bars, take a look at what happened last week in federal court to Ricardo Walters, the first person to be sentenced in the scam.

Walters had helped his Aunt Harriette steal millions from D.C. coffers in a scheme that went back 20 years. Harriette Walters, the alleged mastermind, was busted and jailed last year. She’s waiting trial.

Ricardo Walters, 33, was charged in November with helping Aunt Harriette launder the city’s cash. What did Walters do when the feds fingered him? Twelve days later, he opened a fresh bank account at SunTrust and tried to stash $150,000.

In all, authorities said Walters laundered $4.2 million in fraudulent property tax refunds through his cleaning company, Provident Home Services. Walters admitted that he kept close to $800,000 for himself.

Instead of your tax dollars going to the schools or the police or the health department, $10,000 went to Walters’ new pool. He spent $18,000 at Ballerina Jewelers. Feds found $272,000 in bank accounts.

So how much time did the judge give Walters for his role in the most costly and grandiose corruption scheme in city history? Six and a half years behind bars. With good time, I say he’s back on the street in four years.

How come a guy caught stealing $4 million in tax dollars gets off with six-plus years? Dude caught with four grams of crack cocaine might do 10 years, easy.

The answers could drive you nuts. By law, Walters could have faced up to 10 years for possession of stolen property; he could have gotten another 20 years for conspiracy to commit money laundering. Under the law, U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams could have sent Walters away for 30 years.

But under the sentencing guidelines that most judges use, the 30-year maximum becomes seven and a half years. The prosecutors recommended six and a half, most likely because Walters ratted out some others.

“This was a horrible scheme,” Judge Williams said. “Candidly, it’s shocking and shameful.”

Candidly, I am shocked the prosecutors asked for only six and a half years and the judge went along. The Supreme Court has ruled that judges no longer have to stick to the guidelines. “Judges have much more discretion than they used to,” a lawyer familiar with the case told me.

Judge Williams whined, but he could have given Walters a much harsher sentence. If prosecution and jail time are a deterrent to corruption, and you get six years for stealing $4 million, too many potential white-collar criminals might like the odds.

“If you’re caught embezzling a few hundred thousand, you’ll probably get probation,” one lawyer said. “It might be worth the risk.”

Walters said he would pay back the $4.2 million. Judge Williams, in a moment of clarity, said, “It’s gone.”

Along with good, old-fashioned justice.