While the sentences may appear harsh, there is no proof that Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley were arbitrarily singled out for prosecution in their tax fraud case. Instead, they received 12- and 7-year prison terms for their individual roles in the case.
What will be the trial process for Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley?
According to Judge Rachel Juarez, who serves as the third judge on the first-ever three-judge CBS panel show Hot Bench, the Chrisley Knows Best actors’ prison terms are in line with what most legislative experts predicted. Although the prison terms for Todd and Julie Chrisley are significant, Juarez, who was not involved in the federal case involving the Chrisleys and has no connection to the troubled reality TV stars, claims they are nowhere near the range that the prosecutors recommended — 17 1/2 to 22 years for Todd Chrisley and 10 to 12 1/2 years for Julie.
Almost six months after being found guilty of conspiring to conduct bank fraud, fraud against the United States, and tax fraud, the Chrisleys were sentenced on Monday. The Chrisleys have been contacted by ET for comment.
Juarez states, “I think these penalties were pretty much within the range of what one would expect.” “These were quite grave offences. The scam was significant, and neither Todd nor Julie genuinely expressed regret for their actions. They persisted in their behaviour. They didn’t apologise or take ownership of their actions.”
What exactly gone wrong in Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley’s case?
Juarez thinks that Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley’s failure to express regret ultimately cost them. According to Juarez, “I think refusal to accept responsibility undoubtedly played into the punishment.” As per the judge and the prosecutors, these two people not only refused to take responsibility but also placed blame on others. Additionally, there was substantial evidence, which the prosecutors cited, that the Chrisleys not only unjustly accused others but also had other people falsely testify on their behalf. And those activities definitely don’t assist when it comes to sentence.”
Juarez believes there isn’t a grain of evidence to support the claim that Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley were unfairly targeted, despite this.
Juarez says, “They aren’t targeted unfairly Being on reality television by chance means that you essentially provide proof for the government every day, in my opinion “She clarifies. “It is undeniable that the government relied heavily on evidence from the Chrisleys’ reality TV programme and media appearances during both the trial and the sentencing. In that regard, the government may frequently find it advantageous that they are a subject of reality television, both in deciding whether to bring a case and in carrying it out.”
She went on, “However, whether or not that is unfair, I firmly disagree. The government has no additional reason to pursue them, and in this instance [the Chrisleys] obtained sentences that fell short of acceptable standards. Therefore, taking into account additional variables including their age, security risk, and criminal past, they were not brutally punished beyond what would be within the guideline or even below the guideline.” Juarez thinks that the Chrisleys did experience the “deterrent effect.”
What measures can be taken during the Chrisley duo’s sentence?
The deterrent impact, or whether the punishment is effectively acting as a warning to prevent future crimes, is one of the factors the court is required to consider when passing judgement, according to the prosecutor. “And when it comes to crimes like bank fraud, tax evasion, and the ones Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley were found guilty of, there is a perception among members of the legal profession, including judges and prosecutors, that those offences can be deterred.
This is because many white-collar criminals, as opposed to those who commit violent crimes under unusual circumstances or out of passion, meticulously plan their actions and perform a sort of cost-benefit analysis of what is going to happen. Therefore, it was crucial to demonstrate to America and the general public that these actions have repercussions so that others watching might think twice about committing tax fraud, bank fraud, or lying about their financials themselves. Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley were [flaunting their wealth], putting it out there for the country—that they were spending, leading a lavish lifestyle.”
Todd Chrisley should complete his prison term at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Pensacola in Florida, according to the judge’s recommendation in the Chrisleys’ case. Additionally, he advised Julie to complete her sentence at FCI Tallahassee. Where federal offenders serve their sentences is ultimately decided by the Bureau of Prisons, although Juarez claims that the judge’s recommendation is taken very seriously.
Juarez claims that FCI Pensacola “has made many lists as one of the simpler places to serve time in a federal system.” A Buffalo News article from October 2020 compared the minimum-security prison to “camp” and called it “laid-back.”
The source added that FCI Pensacola inmates have access to a well-stocked library, gym, and track, as well as the opportunity to participate in a number of activities like racquetball, volleyball, and horseshoes. Also, they’ve done movie nights. According to the Buffalo News, the prison poses such a low risk that it isn’t even set up for solitary confinement.
Julie will shortly be moving into the same prison where the disgraced former socialite Ghislaine Maxwell is doing her term. The 755 inmates of the all-female FCI Tallahassee are awakened each day at 6 a.m. One source claims that offenders get access to yoga lessons, are permitted to view movies and can participate in sports including softball, basketball, and volleyball. They can take up hobbies like ceramics, painting, and other arts. But Juarez points out that no prison is simple hence Todd Chrisley and Julie Chrisley should consider that.