4 ms·

I understand that things can look bad and perhaps even look illegal but then an investigation is done the prosecutors correctly conclude that no actual law was

I understand that things can look bad and perhaps even look illegal but then an investigation is done the prosecutors correctly conclude that no actual law was violated. That makes sense and is totally fine by me. What's hard for me to understand and believe is that a company like GS would be willing to pay out that much money when no crime had occurred. If no crime had occurred why did they set aside nearly 2 billion dollars for legal defense. I can understand setting aside that much to defend against an actual prosecution but there was none here. Another thing that is concerning is that if all of this happened but no actual crime was committed then maybe the laws need to be changed. I don't know enough about the current state of the law (or previous) but it would seem that through years of lobbying the big banks were able to buy themselves a much more comfortable legal and regulatory environment within which they could operate. One so comfortable that they could do what they did without even breaking the law. I think that is something worth being angry about.

rayiner 11y ago
> What's hard for me to understand and believe is that a company like GS would be willing to pay out that much money when no crime had occurred. The settlement is for a civil action under the FIRREA: http://www.jonesday.com/firrea-civil-money-penalties-the-governments-newfound-weapon-against-financial-fraud http://www.jonesday.com/firrea-civil-money-penalties-the-gov.... That Act provides for the government to bring a civil action for violations of 14 specific criminal statutes. While the government must prove the elements of these crimes, the burden of proof is only the "civil preponderance" of the evidence standard, not the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
- dopamean 11y ago
  Makes sense. Thanks for the info.

rayiner 11y ago

> What's hard for me to understand and believe is that a company like GS would be willing to pay out that much money when no crime had occurred. The settlement is for a civil action under the FIRREA: http://www.jonesday.com/firrea-civil-money-penalties-the-governments-newfound-weapon-against-financial-fraud http://www.jonesday.com/firrea-civil-money-penalties-the-gov.... That Act provides for the government to bring a civil action for violations of 14 specific criminal statutes. While the government must prove the elements of these crimes, the burden of proof is only the "civil preponderance" of the evidence standard, not the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

dopamean 11y ago
Makes sense. Thanks for the info.