Legal experts say the "blame-the-underling/ignorant CEO" strategy is risky when CEOs try to pin crimes on their financial officers because CEOs are responsible for who works for them. If Tom Noe, who is accused of embezzling more than $2 million from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, uses the "ignorant CEO" defense, there is a way to undermine it, according to Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor. Henning said the prosecutors can have other witnesses tell anecdotes reflecting the defendant's intelligence. The defendant might need to take the witness stand to combat those anecdotes. However, they have the option of not testifying, which is their right. "Part of what you do is show how smart they are, and show that this wasn't someone who was easily bamboozled," said Henning. "These cases are built on circumstantial evidence. Almost no one sends an email that says, 'Here's how I plan to steal.'"