5 ms·

I've already read that -- it does not explain why. It simply states that it cannot. What law restricted it? Why was that law put into place? How often are recom

by tabeth 9y ago

I've already read that -- it does not explain why. It simply states that it cannot. What law restricted it? Why was that law put into place? How often are recommendations for prosecution followed up on successfully? EDIT: Thanks everyone for the information -- very interesting.

Bud 9y ago
I'm pretty sure no law restricted it, and that the SEC's powers were set when it was established in the 1930s during the New Deal. So the answer to "why" appears to be, "because that's how it was set up".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
brandonmenc 9y ago
There's probably not a law explicitly restricting it, because that's not a power it ever had in the first place.
Karunamon 9y ago
Criminal litigation authority is on a whitelist, not a blacklist. It's not that a law restricted them, it's that they simply were never granted that authority. Random government authorities can't bring criminal proceedings anymore than the meter maid writing a parking ticket has the ability to haul you to court for parking in the wrong place. They send the information along to the people who do have that authority and act on it if they see fit (prosecutorial discretion). The key words in the article are "civil, not criminal".
- tabeth 9y ago
  > The key words in the article are "civil, not criminal". My keyword is why.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    [disregard this, not enough caffiene today apparently] Separation of powers. The SEC is part of the executive branch. The judicial branch is responsible for bringing suit. If you want the why for that why, that's a philosophical discussion that probably won't be well served by a HN comment thread.
    - tacon 9y ago
      Huh? The judicial branch is just judges, not prosecutors.
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        Bah, got mixed up. The overall point remains the same. They have to be granted that power, not restricted from it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dpark 9y ago
    Do you believe that every agency in the government should be able to send people to jail? The SEC can't send people to jail for the same reason the Dept of Housing and Urban Development and the Post Office can't, because they have not been granted that legal authority. The ability to imprison is not granted to most Federal agencies. Why would the SEC be able to imprison people? That's not their job. They also can't set the prime interest rate or grant radio spectrum rights to AT&T.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Because in general, Americans dislike the idea that a bureaucrat, in addition to the powers they may wield within their own domain of influence, may also subject people to criminal liability at their own discretion. The concept of limited government demands that certain powers must be separated such that they never come together in the same person. That simple measure ensures that tyranny can arise only through conspiracy, cooperation, and collusion between multiple bad actors, rather than just one person acting alone. Why can't your HOA put you in jail for not mowing your lawn often enough? Because the kind of petty nagging nitpicking bastard that typically volunteers to serve on the HOA enforcement committee makes the absolute worst kind of cop. The power goes right to their heads, and they abuse the heck out of it to further their own goals and agenda. The question we should be asking is why do the federal criminal investigators and prosecutors seem to pay less attention to financial crimes referred to them by the SEC than they attend to other crimes?
protomyth 9y ago
All federal prosecutors are part of the United States Department of Justice[1]. Here is the law and reasons: https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal... Here are the statistics https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=63 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=63 1) https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/usa/en_usa-int-desc-guide.html https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/usa/en_usa-int-desc-guid...
DannyBee 9y ago
Federal agencies are explicitly affirmative authority grants. Their powers are laid out in those acts. They can only do those things. They cannot do other things just because "no law restricts it". The exact authority grant is complicated. You want: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78d https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78d and following sections, plus a whole bunch of stuff enacted elsewhere. The part you are probably most looking for is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u There you can see most clearly their civil authority and what they are allowed to do. You can see it says "Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged ... in acts or practices constituting a violation of {a bunch of stuff} .. it may in its discretion bring an action ... to enjoin such acts or practices ... . The Commission may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning such acts or practices as may constitute a violation of any provision of this chapter or the rules or regulations thereunder to the Attorney General, who may, in his discretion, institute the necessary criminal proceedings under this chapter" It then goes on to add additional monetary penalty authority that you see exercised here.
- tabeth 9y ago
  Thanks DannyBee. I appreciate your reply.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> What law restricted it? I believe the Justice Department brings all federal criminal charges [1] under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [2]. Bringing criminal charges is specialized work. It makes sense to have the specialists handle specialist work. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/steps-federal-criminal-process https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/steps-federal-crimi... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp

by tabeth 9y ago

Bud 9y ago

I'm pretty sure no law restricted it, and that the SEC's powers were set when it was established in the 1930s during the New Deal. So the answer to "why" appears to be, "because that's how it was set up".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

brandonmenc 9y ago

There's probably not a law explicitly restricting it, because that's not a power it ever had in the first place.

Karunamon 9y ago

Criminal litigation authority is on a whitelist, not a blacklist. It's not that a law restricted them, it's that they simply were never granted that authority. Random government authorities can't bring criminal proceedings anymore than the meter maid writing a parking ticket has the ability to haul you to court for parking in the wrong place. They send the information along to the people who do have that authority and act on it if they see fit (prosecutorial discretion). The key words in the article are "civil, not criminal".

tabeth 9y ago
> The key words in the article are "civil, not criminal". My keyword is why.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  [disregard this, not enough caffiene today apparently] Separation of powers. The SEC is part of the executive branch. The judicial branch is responsible for bringing suit. If you want the why for that why, that's a philosophical discussion that probably won't be well served by a HN comment thread.
  - tacon 9y ago
    Huh? The judicial branch is just judges, not prosecutors.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      Bah, got mixed up. The overall point remains the same. They have to be granted that power, not restricted from it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dpark 9y ago
  Do you believe that every agency in the government should be able to send people to jail? The SEC can't send people to jail for the same reason the Dept of Housing and Urban Development and the Post Office can't, because they have not been granted that legal authority. The ability to imprison is not granted to most Federal agencies. Why would the SEC be able to imprison people? That's not their job. They also can't set the prime interest rate or grant radio spectrum rights to AT&T.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Because in general, Americans dislike the idea that a bureaucrat, in addition to the powers they may wield within their own domain of influence, may also subject people to criminal liability at their own discretion. The concept of limited government demands that certain powers must be separated such that they never come together in the same person. That simple measure ensures that tyranny can arise only through conspiracy, cooperation, and collusion between multiple bad actors, rather than just one person acting alone. Why can't your HOA put you in jail for not mowing your lawn often enough? Because the kind of petty nagging nitpicking bastard that typically volunteers to serve on the HOA enforcement committee makes the absolute worst kind of cop. The power goes right to their heads, and they abuse the heck out of it to further their own goals and agenda. The question we should be asking is why do the federal criminal investigators and prosecutors seem to pay less attention to financial crimes referred to them by the SEC than they attend to other crimes?

protomyth 9y ago

All federal prosecutors are part of the United States Department of Justice[1]. Here is the law and reasons: https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal... Here are the statistics https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=63 https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=63 1) https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/usa/en_usa-int-desc-guide.html https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/usa/en_usa-int-desc-guid...

DannyBee 9y ago

Federal agencies are explicitly affirmative authority grants. Their powers are laid out in those acts. They can only do those things. They cannot do other things just because "no law restricts it". The exact authority grant is complicated. You want: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78d https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78d and following sections, plus a whole bunch of stuff enacted elsewhere. The part you are probably most looking for is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u There you can see most clearly their civil authority and what they are allowed to do. You can see it says "Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged ... in acts or practices constituting a violation of {a bunch of stuff} .. it may in its discretion bring an action ... to enjoin such acts or practices ... . The Commission may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning such acts or practices as may constitute a violation of any provision of this chapter or the rules or regulations thereunder to the Attorney General, who may, in his discretion, institute the necessary criminal proceedings under this chapter" It then goes on to add additional monetary penalty authority that you see exercised here.

tabeth 9y ago
Thanks DannyBee. I appreciate your reply.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> What law restricted it? I believe the Justice Department brings all federal criminal charges [1] under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [2]. Bringing criminal charges is specialized work. It makes sense to have the specialists handle specialist work. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/steps-federal-criminal-process https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/steps-federal-crimi... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp