Restitutions: Did he pay up?
As a bearer of bad news, I tread saying Jordan Belfort did not face considerable punishment proportional to his crime. Therefore, he can thank double Jeopardy. Well, what is punishment? Punishment as Belfort describes is, “I had seen this happen in the movies, and they always took your sneakers before they r*ped you” (Belfort 25) In other words, he subconsciously believed he deserved to be in a maximum security prison. However, to his relief, he got awarded 22 months in a federal camp and 110 million dollars to pay in financial restitution. Consequently, many would argue the Wolf of Wall Street got off scot-free.
Who is arguing he got off scot-free?
Emily Esfahan Smith
One of those individuals is Emily Esfahan Smith. She wrote an article titled "No Redemption for the Wolf", which references the letter Christina McDowell sent to the filmmakers of The Wolf of Wall Street. McDowell is the daughter of an ex-Stratton Oakmont broker; in her letter, she states, “These wolves …" always, always land on their feet." Belfort himself lives in a beautiful home in Manhattan Beach, California. He made over $2 million for his two memoirs and film rights” (Smith). She is entertaining the idea that Jordan Belfort’s punishment is lenient. This is something agreeable because his actions did not ruin his life as with other criminals. However, When Smith states, “He has yet to repay his victims, as the government said he must, for the millions that he stole from them” (Smith). I could not help but cringe at the idea that she has read through thousands of legal documents and private account statements to come up with such a conclusion. That must have been painful right? I could not find much about the matter. In essence, what can be concluded is unclear, or at least not as clear as Smith’s claim.
Who are some of these wolves?
Josh Shapiro
Jordan Belfort
Jordan Belfort
Another ex-broker seems to be doing well for themselves. This proves the point made in McDowell’s letter mentioned in Smith’s "No Redemption for the Wolf", the proposition, “these wolves, she writes, "always, always land on their feet." (Smith). One of those wolves is Josh Shapiro. He wrote an article in the NY Post titled My life working for the real ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ describing his experience in the wolf’s den. He states, “But eventually, the blindness from the drugs, the girls and the cars, the clothes and the money, wore off. These people were some of the worst people that I have ever met in my life — they would sell their own grandmother in a second” (Buiso). He argues an exuberant standard of living seems to blind one from identifying unethical behavior. Shapiro’s claim holds weight because it sheds light on the difficulty of letting go of a glamorous lifestyle. As he states, “It’s probably why I’m in the medical business now and I’m a physician’s assistant — to try to make up for that s- -t.” (Buiso). In distinction to his verbatim, guilt resides within himself for being fraudulent in his old stockbroker profession. This also implies he is doing well for himself. Which seems to add weight to McDowell’s claim.
Jordan Belfort
Jordan Belfort
Jordan Belfort
Jordan Belfort shares the same sentiment as his ex-broker Shapiro. In his memoir The Wolf of Wall Street he states, “I sincerely hope is that my life serves as a cautionary tale to the rich and poor alike; to anyone who’s living with a spoon up their nose and a bunch of pills dissolving in their stomach sac; or to any person who’s considering taking a God-given gift and misusing it” (Belfort 14). It is common today to dismiss the fact that people change. With this statement, he seems to have opposed his crimes, and that anyone committing financial crimes is misusing their talent. Yet some readers would object to my interpretation. To a reasonable extent, I agree he might not feel remorse, but who would make a book portraying themselves as a bad person? Why would he make a cautionary tale? Surely, he wants to redeem himself and guide the youth away from his path, hopefully, as I hold an objective stance.
Shortcomings of the court
Despite the Court’s shortcomings, Jordan Belfort has no accountability for that. He did not choose his sentence. He may influence the decision by cooperating with authorities. In his memoir, he states, “if I went to trial and lost I would get thirty years. And while I could have gotten six or seven years with a straight guilty plea” (Belfort 385). He claims to have been in a predicament. In addition, he just did what was right, helping the investigation. Yes, some might beg to differ because he still acted in his self-interest. However, the same doctors that saved Jordan Belfort from his overdose were acting in their self-interest. A lot of wonderful things for society were done by people who acted in their best self-interest. Jordan Belfort did the right thing by cooperating with authorities, and it yielded a smooth trial. That is one way he redeemed or paid restitution.
I mentioned in the Regulations, that Jordan Belfort owes 100 million in restitution. Then I mentioned that was not a severe punishment, because of how much he possibly made from securities fraud. The truth is that I could not find any concrete numbers about his earnings as the owner of Stratton Oakmont. However, I will use some math and assumptions to arrive at an estimate. The average broker at Stratton according to Belfort as he states “ And by year three you’d better be making a million or more or you were a complete fucking laughingstock. And those were only the minimums” (Belfort 42). I will apply the assumption that each broker made around 50 percent commission (probably high). We now multiply 1,000 employees by a modest $500,000, half of what Jordan claims. We arrive at 500 million per year. That is the amount his brokers made as a collective. Now if we use the 50 percent commission, then that is equal to 500 million for Jordan Belfort. This does not even account for the profits he made from taking on stakes in private companies. I used conservative inputs, and I still got very high numbers. Therefore, these numbers support claims that his punishment could have been more severe. However, he did earn some leniency by cooperating.
Key takeaway
In conclusion, it seems as if Jordan Belfort is making the best of his situation. He is just playing by the rules. You cannot get mad at someone tackling you in American football. Although his actions are egregiously unethical, he did not receive a punishment of equal magnitude. However, this is attributed to his cooperation with authorities to serve justice. Despite claims, it is unclear whether he is paying restitutions. In essence, he has provided a cautionary tale to our generation.
Relevance today
Find out more
Click below for the story of Sam Bankman fried, who did not follow Jordan Belfort's cautionary.