3 ms·
At their scale, that's a small fine. Barely 10% of annual net profit.
by madaxe_again 9y ago
At their scale, that's a small fine. Barely 10% of annual net profit.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoBetter metric is relative to Mexican, or North American, profits. Those are the markets in which they did their shenanigans. Relative to those, it’s a substantial absolute and relative sum.
- lukeschlather 9y agoIf I'm interpreting the article correctly, they made at least $888 million off of their scheme. It's likely that a significant amount of their illicit profit was not detected by the enforcement agencies, so $2 billion sounds like they potentially profited even factoring in the fine, it's only a little over twice their profit.
- wavefunction 9y agoYou have to make the entire organism pay a price or else it gets laughed off as a temporary setback. Jail these folks, and the folks they reported to. You start throwing some bankers in jail and you'll see some magic "self-regulation" kick in.
- jessaustin 9y agoThe last thing federal prosecutors want to do is make rich and powerful white people worry. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
- busterarm 9y agoHell, Wachovia got off with a $160mil fine and all they had to do was buy and change their name to Wells Fargo!
- acct1771 9y agoAnd the entities that received that fine money? Likely complicit in that some of the laundering themselves. So, what was fixed?