????他問聽眾：“我為什么會在這里？首先我要說，我在這里的原因是我曾經犯過罪……我造成過不可估量的損失，永遠也不可能彌補。但我試圖通過做報告，特別是為學生或董事做報告，來幫助人們了解我為什么會做這樣的事，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重蹈我的覆轍。”

????法斯托接著說：“我在這里的另一個原因是，在我看來，如今的情況比安然出事時還要糟糕十倍……現在人們正在重復安然做過的事和我做過的事，而且很多時候他們做的這么出格，讓我這個安然前首席財務官都臉紅。”他提到了一直廣為使用的表外機構以及公司養老金計劃中夸大的預估財務數字。

????法斯托說，他遭到指控的原因是“技術性違反證券法規”——但那不是“他被判有罪的主要原因”。他“最嚴重的罪名”是，他主導的那些交易，“故意給安然制造了一個假象——讓安然看起來很健康，但實際上并不是這樣。”

????法斯托解釋說：“會計法規和證券法規都很模糊，它們很復雜……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雜性和模糊性看作問題，而是把它們當作機會。”唯一的問題是，“規則是否允許——或者說規則是否允許這樣進行解釋。”

????法斯托堅持說每項交易都得到了批準——律師、會計師、管理層和董事會的批準。但他指出，安然案還是成為“歷史上最大的會計詐騙案。”他帶著諷刺的口吻問道：“已經得到批準的……又怎么會成為詐騙呢？”

????法斯托說，因為它有誤導性——而且他知道這一點。他對聽眾們說：“我知道那樣做不對，我知道我所做的事情會誤導別人。但我并不認為這樣做違法。我的想法是：游戲就是這么玩的。擺在你面前的是一套復雜的規則，而你的目標是讓這些規則為你所用。這就是我犯的錯誤。”

????講了大約20分鐘后，法斯托開始回答問題。雖然會議組織方對此表示擔心，但法斯托依然堅持這樣做。達拉斯警察局前詐騙調查員、總部設在奧斯丁的ACFE首席執行官詹姆士?萊特利說：“很多人仍然很憤怒。我擔心會有人搗亂。”

????ACFE每年都會邀請一位“污點演講人”在他們的大會上發言。但邀請法斯托在商務社交網站LinkedIn的留言板上引起了異常負面的反應。有人表示不滿：“對于所有可以在大會上發言的誠信而可敬的調查員來說，這個邀請無異于打了他們所有人一個耳光。”也有人總結說：“他簡直是人渣。”還有人這樣留言：“我認為他是工于心計的罪犯，和為了得到別人的錢而持槍搶銀行的暴徒一樣壞。”

????但萊特利沒有理會這些批評。“作為詐騙審查師，如果你不想和詐騙者打交道，那你就該換個工作。”萊特利說他先和法斯托見了一面，目的是看看他“會不會有任何的含糊其辭。我和他談話的過程中，他既不躲也不閃，連眼睛也不眨一下。”ACFE宣傳材料在顯著位置說明，法斯托是無償在會上發言（ACFE承擔了他的差旅費用）。

????"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).