> that require the government to cease doing business with financial establishments convicted of criminal offenses. I guess that's why most of those settlement

> that require the government to cease doing business with financial establishments convicted of criminal offenses. I guess that's why most of those settlements are worded so that there is no criminal offence. As in, "Company X agrees to pay $XBn to the gubmint, but admits no wrongdoing." I wonder if, once pushed to a higher court, such a clause (or the whole settlement) could be declared invalid. As in, if you did no wrong, why exactly are you giving $XBn to the government? Is that some kind of bribe? As in, I give government money, they don't bother me about the crap I did. Frankly the whole thing looks like a regular business contract between X and government, not a "guilty" judgment.