It looks like Tom Coughlin's name is again surfacing in relation to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT). Coughlin was the former executive -- a protege of founder Sam Walton -- that was found guilty of fraud and embezzlement at the world's largest retailer years ago. Now, a former administrative manager has sued Coughlin for -- wait for it -- taking part in Coughlin's fraudulent activities.

Patsy Stephens filed a suit against Tom Coughlin last Friday for being terminated that same day by the retailer. Stephens submitted vouchers on Coughlin's behalf and then apparently deposited the money into her own bank account. She then wrote checks for cash to Coughlin and her immediate supervisor, Rob Hey.

As would be expected, Stephens was found guilty of wire fraud and is awaiting sentencing on eight counts. She did have 25 years employment history with the retailer, that is, until last Friday when her official employment was terminated. Stephens, who fired right back with her lawsuit, claims she was not doing anything wrong, and that her actions were thought to be for the good of the company.

Her former supervisor, Rob Hey, has also filed suit against Coughlin. If these two former employees Wal-Mart working under Coughlin really think depositing money from reimbursement vouchers into their own bank accounts in order to write cash checks to Coughlin was okay, then Wal-Mart's hiring practices might not be on the level. From what I've read here, Stephens' case is baseless. What do you think?

In a corporate embarrassment moment that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) probably wants to forget, former and fired executive Thomas Coughlin is in the news again, more than a year after he was found guilty multiple instances of fraud against the world's largest retailer.

Coughlin, who was sentenced to home detention as a result of his fraudulent actions, was not given an adequate sentence in light of his crimes. Therefore, he'll need another sentencing hearing according to an appeals court yesterday.

The established sentence of 27 months home detention and 33 months of additional probation was too light, according to the appeals court. It still amazes me that a 28-year veteran of the world's largest retailer rose to where he was in the company's hierarchy only to see some unbelievably stupid actions cause him to be fired and charged with tax and fraud crimes.

One of the judges on the case dissented with the re-sentencing stance, stating that Coughlin's poor health should dictate that his lenient sentence stand. Should health status or even age determine sentence severity? It can go either way. It did not in Bernie Ebbers' case, although his crimes were of a much more severe nature.