Plea deal - wrong deal?

This morning's Northwest Herald includes an article about an estate problem. Or was it?

On November 4, 2011, charges were filed against Timothy Zink, 61, and Rosemary Zink, 59. Three felony charges included Financial Exploitation of the Elderly (over $100,000) and theft ($100-500,000), and one misdemeanor charge of Resisting a Peace Officer.

The McHenry County State's Attorney office prosecuted the charges. Attorney Dane Loizzo defended Timothy Zink, according to the article.

Each was fined $750.00 in court costs and fees and was given "conditional discharge". Restitution of $70,000 is a conditional of each sentence. Judge Gordon Graham was the judge.

No probate records for Walter Zink, Timothy's father, exist in online records of the McHenry County Circuit Court. Perhaps he wasn't a resident of McHenry County when he died, or no probate has been opened. The nature of the exploitation and theft charges indicates that the money/assets were allegedly removed from the father's assets during his lifetime. Walter Zink has since died, so is the attorney's reasoning correct that the financial matter should have been handled by the estate?

No. Not just "No", but NO! The alleged theft occurred while the father was alive. That's what the theft charges were about. Why did the State's Attorney Office (SAO) decide to deal, instead of carrying the charges to prosecution? Was it the easy way out? Why would the SAO toss three felonies for a plea on resisting arrest?

The article ends with "... if the Zinks do not repay the money, they will not be penalized."

Oh, really? What about Contempt of Court? What about failing to meet the conditions of the sentence? Why wouldn't Judge Graham slam them on September 4, 2013, if they have not complied with his sentence?

I am reminded of another estate, where more than $50,000 reportedly is missing from the original assets in the estate. In that estate matter, no charges have even been filed. In fact, the attorney who is the most recent successor executor for the estate has not accounted for the original assets, telling the probate judge that he doesn't know of other assets. And the judge isn't questioning whether the liquid assets (cash and liquidated investments) vanished in the hands of the first executor. Why not?