4 ms·
Matt Taibbi wrote about this in his book The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap [1]. Enron was probably the last big corporate take-down b
by kqr2 11y ago
Matt Taibbi wrote about this in his book The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap [1].
Enron was probably the last big corporate take-down by the government.
From an interview http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/15/who_goes_to_jail_matt_taibbi http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/15/who_goes_to_jail_matt_...
But at the bottom of it, there was this thing that he [Eric Holder]
laid out called the "collateral consequences doctrine."
And what "collateral consequences" meant was that if
you’re a prosecutor and you’re targeting one of these big
corporate offenders and you’re worried that you may
affect innocent victims, that shareholders or innocent
executives may lose their jobs, you may consider other
alternatives, other remedies besides criminal
prosecutions—in other words, fines, nonprosecution
agreements, deferred prosecution agreements.
And again, at the time, it was a completely sensible
thing to lay out. Of course it makes sense to not always
destroy a company if you can avoid it. But what they’ve
done is they’ve conflated that sometimes-sensible policy
with a policy of not going after any individuals for any
crimes. And that’s just totally unacceptable.
1. http://smile.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth/dp/0812983637 http://smile.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth...
- josho 11y agoOr concisely: Too big to fail; too big to jail
- maxerickson 11y agoShareholders don't deserve protection like that. I understand that giant corporations are not particularly run by shareholders, but if someone dumps their money into something and doesn't pay attention to it, it's fine to make them feel the consequences of not paying attention.
- arcticfox 11y agoI'm confused by this. Shareholders are some of the primary victims being defrauded in these cases. Enron's accounting gymnastics were precisely to defraud their shareholders. How is that negligence on the part of the shareholder? It's not - it's criminal on the part of the executives.
- maxerickson 11y agoI didn't say it was negligence on the part of the shareholder. They are putting their money under the control of someone else, they should be thinking about risk when they do so. Is it so clear that a series of closer looks at Enron's books would have missed the fraud? It's also the case that I was thinking more about the companies that are fined and keep operating with all the same officers in place than I was thinking about companies that implode. For example, shareholders of JP Morgan apparently aren't real sad with Jamie Dimon.
- dnautics 11y agoThe reason why the government has to take action on this is because as a matter of policy, the government coerces people to invest in corporate America. If people were freer to not participate in the stock market casino, then there would be no need to regulate it.
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago> It's not - it's criminal on the part of the executives. So if this kind of behavior is prosecuted and severely punished (e.g. lifetime prison sentences) - shareholders would be less likely to be defrauded. The protect-the-shareholders attitude is entirely oxymoronic here, since it just means that those exploiting the share-holders and the corporation know they are unlikely to face significant consequences and this encourages others to do likewise.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> Enron's accounting gymnastics were precisely to defraud their shareholders. How is that negligence on the part of the shareholder? It's not - it's criminal on the part of the executives. Of course it is. Because in that case the perpetrators are the corporate officers and the victims are the shareholders. The shareholders were partially responsible for not choosing better officers, but for that they can only blame themselves. But there are times when officers choose to harm third parties in furtherance of the interest of the shareholders. They do something illegal because it's profitable. And in that case losing their money is exactly what shareholders deserve for choosing officers with no scruples.
- spinlock 11y agoUnless theyre a German bank that bet on the housing bubble.
- stegosaurus 11y agoI understand the principle here, but the specific examples given here are a bit odd. >>> shareholders or innocent executives may lose their jobs Shareholders are unlikely to be affected to a large extent because their holdings in Enron would probably make up a small portion of their net worth. Executives are paid large salaries and so can deal with the effects anyway. I'd be much more concerned with the rank and file.
- HeyLaughingBoy 11y agoMany Enron "shareholders" were retirees whose retirement plans were heavy on Enron and they were basically wiped out.
- leoc 11y agoWilliam K. Black is well worth reading on the issue too http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/eric-holder-resignationjusticefinancialcrisisfraud.html http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/eric-holder-res... , as one of the team that successfully prosecuted people back in the S&L days http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Rob-Bank-Own/dp/0292721390 http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Rob-Bank-Own/dp/0292721390 (apparently it wasn't politially easy then either).
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago"Of course it makes sense to not always destroy a company if you can avoid it." So that's the basic implied threat - destruction? Nice. And this then becomes a brinksmanship game. The act of flauting the law is now coin of the realm. Enron was taken down by ... the running dogs of CALPERS. "My fund can beat up your fund" so to speak. This is why we can't have affordable housing - the spall from Enron painted the whole state of Texas.