????他問(wèn)聽(tīng)眾：“我為什么會(huì)在這里,？首先我要說(shuō),，我在這里的原因是我曾經(jīng)犯過(guò)罪……我造成過(guò)不可估量的損失，永遠(yuǎn)也不可能彌補(bǔ),。但我試圖通過(guò)做報(bào)告，特別是為學(xué)生或董事做報(bào)告,，來(lái)幫助人們了解我為什么會(huì)做這樣的事,，我是怎樣越陷越深的，以及他們可能要采用怎樣的思路才不會(huì)重蹈我的覆轍,?！?/p>

????法斯托接著說(shuō)：“我在這里的另一個(gè)原因是，在我看來(lái),，如今的情況比安然出事時(shí)還要糟糕十倍……現(xiàn)在人們正在重復(fù)安然做過(guò)的事和我做過(guò)的事,，而且很多時(shí)候他們做的這么出格，讓我這個(gè)安然前首席財(cái)務(wù)官都臉紅,?！彼岬搅艘恢睆V為使用的表外機(jī)構(gòu)以及公司養(yǎng)老金計(jì)劃中夸大的預(yù)估財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)字。

????法斯托說(shuō),，他遭到指控的原因是“技術(shù)性違反證券法規(guī)”——但那不是“他被判有罪的主要原因”,。他“最嚴(yán)重的罪名”是，他主導(dǎo)的那些交易,，“故意給安然制造了一個(gè)假象——讓安然看起來(lái)很健康,，但實(shí)際上并不是這樣?！?/p>

????法斯托解釋說(shuō)：“會(huì)計(jì)法規(guī)和證券法規(guī)都很模糊,，它們很復(fù)雜……我在安然所做的事以及我們作為一家公司所做的事不是把這種復(fù)雜性和模糊性看作問(wèn)題，而是把它們當(dāng)作機(jī)會(huì),?！蔽ㄒ坏膯?wèn)題是，“規(guī)則是否允許——或者說(shuō)規(guī)則是否允許這樣進(jìn)行解釋,?！?/p>

????法斯托堅(jiān)持說(shuō)每項(xiàng)交易都得到了批準(zhǔn)——律師、會(huì)計(jì)師,、管理層和董事會(huì)的批準(zhǔn),。但他指出，安然案還是成為“歷史上最大的會(huì)計(jì)詐騙案,?！彼麕еS刺的口吻問(wèn)道：“已經(jīng)得到批準(zhǔn)的……又怎么會(huì)成為詐騙呢？”

????法斯托說(shuō)，因?yàn)樗姓`導(dǎo)性——而且他知道這一點(diǎn),。他對(duì)聽(tīng)眾們說(shuō)：“我知道那樣做不對(duì),，我知道我所做的事情會(huì)誤導(dǎo)別人。但我并不認(rèn)為這樣做違法,。我的想法是：游戲就是這么玩的,。擺在你面前的是一套復(fù)雜的規(guī)則，而你的目標(biāo)是讓這些規(guī)則為你所用,。這就是我犯的錯(cuò)誤,。”

????講了大約20分鐘后,，法斯托開(kāi)始回答問(wèn)題,。雖然會(huì)議組織方對(duì)此表示擔(dān)心，但法斯托依然堅(jiān)持這樣做,。達(dá)拉斯警察局前詐騙調(diào)查員,、總部設(shè)在奧斯丁的ACFE首席執(zhí)行官詹姆士?萊特利說(shuō)：“很多人仍然很憤怒。我擔(dān)心會(huì)有人搗亂,?！?/p>

????ACFE每年都會(huì)邀請(qǐng)一位“污點(diǎn)演講人”在他們的大會(huì)上發(fā)言。但邀請(qǐng)法斯托在商務(wù)社交網(wǎng)站LinkedIn的留言板上引起了異常負(fù)面的反應(yīng),。有人表示不滿：“對(duì)于所有可以在大會(huì)上發(fā)言的誠(chéng)信而可敬的調(diào)查員來(lái)說(shuō),，這個(gè)邀請(qǐng)無(wú)異于打了他們所有人一個(gè)耳光?！币灿腥丝偨Y(jié)說(shuō)：“他簡(jiǎn)直是人渣,。”還有人這樣留言：“我認(rèn)為他是工于心計(jì)的罪犯,，和為了得到別人的錢(qián)而持槍搶銀行的暴徒一樣壞,。”

????但萊特利沒(méi)有理會(huì)這些批評(píng),?！白鳛樵p騙審查師，如果你不想和詐騙者打交道,，那你就該換個(gè)工作,。”萊特利說(shuō)他先和法斯托見(jiàn)了一面,，目的是看看他“會(huì)不會(huì)有任何的含糊其辭,。我和他談話的過(guò)程中，他既不躲也不閃,，連眼睛也不眨一下,?！盇CFE宣傳材料在顯著位置說(shuō)明，法斯托是無(wú)償在會(huì)上發(fā)言（ACFE承擔(dān)了他的差旅費(fèi)用）,。

????"Why am I here?" he asked. "First of all, let me say I'm here because I'm guilty ... I caused immeasurable damage ... I can never repair that. But I try, by doing these presentations, especially by meeting with students or directors, to help them understand why I did the things I did, how I went down that path, and how they might think about things so they also don't make the mistakes I made."

????"The last reason I'm here," Fastow continued, "is because, in my opinion, the problem today is 10 times worse than when Enron had its implosion ... The things that Enron did, and that I did, are being done today, and in many cases they're being done in such a manner that makes me blush -- and I was the CFO of Enron." He cited the continuing widespread use of off-balance-sheet vehicles, as well as inflated financial assumptions embedded in corporate pension plans.

????Fastow said he was prosecuted "for not technically complying with certain securities rules" -- but that wasn't "the important reason why I'm guilty." The "most egregious reason" for his culpability, he said, was that the transactions he spearheaded "intentionally created a false appearance of what Enron was -- it made Enron look healthy when it really wasn't."

????"Accounting rules and regulations and securities laws and regulation are vague," Fastow explained. "They're complex ... What I did at Enron and what we tended to do as a company [was] to view that complexity, that vagueness ... not as a problem, but as an opportunity." The only question was "do the rules allow it -- or do the rules allow an interpretation that will allow it?"

????Fastow insisted he got approval for every single deal -- from lawyers, accountants, management, and directors -- yet noted that Enron is still considered "the largest accounting fraud in history." He asked rhetorically, "How can it be that you get approvals ... and it's still fraud?"

????Because it was misleading, Fastow said -- and he knew it. "I knew it was wrong," he told the crowd. "I knew that what I was doing was misleading. But I didn't think it was illegal. I thought: That's how the game is played. You have a complex set of rules, and the objective is to use the rules to your advantage. And that was the mistake I made."

????After speaking for about 20 minutes, Fastow took questions. He insisted on this despite the trepidations of conference organizers. "A lot of people are still angry," explained James Ratley, a former Dallas police department fraud investigator and the Austin-based group's CEO. "I was cautious that someone would create a disturbance."

????The fraud group invites a "criminal speaker" to address its convention every year. But Fastow's invitation drew unusually acidic comments on a LinkedIn message board. "A total slap in the face to all of the honest and respectable investigators that could be utilized as a presenter," one person fulminated. "Just scum," was another's summary. "To be blunt," a third person wrote, "I see him as a calculating low life, as bad as an armed robber who would shoot up a bank to get the people's money."

????But Ratley dismissed the criticism. "If you're a fraud examiner and you don't want to deal with a fraud perpetrator, you ought to change professions." Ratley said he had met with Fastow to screen him "for any type of evasiveness. He has not dodged, ducked, or blinked since I started talking with him." ACFE made a point of noting prominently in promotional materials that Fastow was not paid to speak. (The group did cover his travel expenses).