Martha Stewart’s Case Martha Stewart’s Case Martha Steward is a successful business lady who knows all that happens when suspicious business deals are made. When she was called by Faneuil on coming back from her trip, she never bothered to question herself about the transaction she was about to make (Steiner, amp. Steiner, 2006). The transaction she was about to make was illegal because it was not authorized from the owner of Merrill Lynch. In fact, Merrill Lynch Company had stopped and ordered the cancellation of the transactions though, Faneuil went ahead to conduct the transaction as instructed by Bacanovic. As much as Martha was not aware of what was going on, she can be judged to be guilty of negligence (Schminke, 2000). She trusted her friends too much, without taking into consideration of the consequences that might follow her action. Steiner and Steiner (2006) assert that in the real sense, Bacanovic was the evil person in this whole occurrence. He knew exactly what he was doing and the implications of this deal on Martha. However, he put his interests first by even involving Faneuil in the whole scandal. Likewise, Faneuil knew exactly that what he was doing was wrong though he was just following orders. Martha on the other hand, had no clue of what was going on, and she just fell blindly into a pre-organized trap. According to the business ethical values one should be held responsible of his or her actions (Useem, 2001). This implies that one ought to be careful of anything she/he commits, something that Martha highly neglected. The US attorneys, the commission of exchange and the securities handled the case appropriately basing on the facts that were brought into their attention (Schminke, 2000). Bacanovic played his game with great intelligence having factual evidence and witnesses that could have him sail through the case. First the recorded conversation between Martha and Faneuil was an appropriate indication that she ordered for the sale to take place. The court systems always rely on evidence in order to make judgments of the cases that are brought before it. Consequently, on Martha’s side it is really hard to prove that she had no idea of what was going on. Martha can thus be mistaken by the court to be denying her actions because the case was now exposed (Useem, 2001). Thus by Faneuil confessing that Martha was made aware of what was going on and still agreed to go ahead with the transaction, can justify the judgment made. From a layman’s perspective, one can surely sympathize with Martha having understood the conspiracies surrounding the whole scandal (Steiner, amp. Steiner, 2006). The Judicial system may sometimes seem so unfair, but who can be blamed when the judges are bound with strict rules and regulations. They always want to perform their duties in accordance to these set regulations. According to the judges’ ethical standards they are only supposed to base their judgments on the facts that are brought into their attention. Schminke (2000) explains that though the judges might have a clue of what conspired, they are not entitled to make judgments basing on what they know. Their role is listening and eventually drawing conclusions from what the lawyers present in the court as they defend their clients. By the court finding Martha guilty of conspiracy and obstruction, I believe it was exactly what any judicial system could have done (Steiner, amp. Steiner, 2006). Martha’s defense was not comparatively strong as compared to the defense of the other side. It can be clearly said that the judges had no additional motives of pursuing the case since her judgment was fair based on the presented facts. Martha should never take lightly any business transaction since transaction need appropriate paper work (Useem, 2001). It is only through this that the court can be able to determine what exactly happened since the word of mouth can be twisted to fit people’s interests. Finally, for Bacanovic and Faneuil’s sentence it can be said it was not exactly appropriate since they were the main culprits in the scandal (Schminke, 2000). Bacanovic had self interests of carrying out the transaction while Faneuil knew exactly what he was putting himself into but still pursed it. They deserved a bigger penalty most especially Bacanovic who was the initiator of all this scandal. However, since the court’s basis is purely on factual presentation, it can be said that it was fair on passing the judgment. Martha might have been a successful business lady but she lacked insight of what exactly conspires in business (Steiner, amp. Steiner, 2006). The whole experience can be viewed as a learning lesson for Martha so that she can take seriously business deals in the future. References Schminke, M. (2000). Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Steiner, G. A., amp. Steiner, J. F. (2006). Business, Government, and Society: A Managerial Perspective: Text And Cases. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Useem, M. (2001). Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the US and UK. S.l.: Oxford University Press.

You may also like


They have children programs in which volunteers can interact with

Diagnostic Assessment of George Costanza

Indeed, if there is one reliable verdict that has appeared

Strategic Management of Kohls Corporation

The target market of Kohl’s Corporation is women aged from