4 ms·

This doesn't explain why the Obama administration did not bother persecuting bank executives. And there was plenty to persecute then for (e.g. laundering money

This doesn't explain why the Obama administration did not bother persecuting bank executives. And there was plenty to persecute then for (e.g. laundering money for drug cartels).

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
The answer according to James Comey was a "chickenshit" culture wherein people were afraid to take on cases that weren't a slam dunk. And it was difficult to make a case that bank executives were guilty thanks to the complex structure involved.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  Do you think there could be some semi-legitimate reasons for that behavior, beyond just laziness and cowardice? Cost is a big issue in the justice system. Of course, you should still go after murders (and other serious offenders), even if it's hard and costly. At least some of the issues in our justice system stem from not having the resources to handle every case fairly. Every criminal case should be fully investigated and tried in court, but the system would break under these conditions. So you end up with a highly perverse system based on extortion, and heavily biased depending on socioeconomic status. Sometimes it works "too well", other times it doesn't work at all.
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    Yes, and it's a problem that affects tech as well: KPI When you award promotions based on, say, the total number or total percentage of successful convictions, then the whole culture starts to optimize for that. Given the sheer number of cases that could be pursued, naturally the easiest-to-win cases will be selected, and more often than not those are small potatoes.
  - msiyer 8y ago
    Cost is the most important concern. Various factors add to it. Time taken to deliver justice, if it ever can be, is the major factor. The justice system is set up like a religion. Even a group of victims with a common influential adversary would find it difficult to carry on for decades with unwavering intensity.
rtkwe 8y ago
Prosecuting someone for a crime like that is tough you have to prove out of the whole company that the people you're prosecuting actually committed the crime. That's hard because the nature of corporations is to diffuse responsibility and decision making.
- mtgx 8y ago
  BS. European countries have prosecuted banking crime just fine. Plus, we have Eric Holder on the record for saying he wouldn't go after bank executives because it could "hurt the economy", a reason I rank right up there with "terrorists attacked us for our freedoms."
  - qaq 8y ago
    Hmm care to show high level execs of say HSBC being prosecuted for money laundering?
- oldgradstudent 8y ago
  They could have treated it just as any other type of organized crime. Start at the bottom and go up the chain of command.
- pas 8y ago
  There is a long list of "reporting requirements" for financial institutions, and a lot of these is about responsibility. Group heads have to sign for their group, department leads for their department, branch managers for their branch, etc. And the CEO of course is responsible for all the branches / departments. This makes it possible to make a case out of ignoring warning signs, ignoring possible whistleblowers about illegal conduct, etc. Usually the Oversight Authority should be able to set at least some rules of these reports to help them set up the right responsibility (and thus incentive) structure (both for prevention and for whistleblowing).
jarsin 8y ago
The main leverage prosecutors have now days is you are going to be financially ruined trying to defend yourself. Innocent or not it's a lose lose for normal people. The prosecutor's don't have this leverage over the rich.
- chii 8y ago
  > The main leverage prosecutors have now days is you are going to be financially ruined trying to defend yourself. which is the very epitome of injustice. Prosecution should be about finding out the truth, and finding out parties responsible for a wrong (and force them to make amends somehow).
- joobus 8y ago
  Gov can have that power over the rich too. Gov will freeze all their assets, claiming they were gotten illegally, and then even rich people can't pay their lawyers. See Kim Dotcom, for example. It's not that gov can't prosecute the rich; they just don't want to.
  - jarsin 8y ago
    Yes the Gov prosecutes the rich from time to time, but it typically only happens if one rich guy pisses off a bunch of other richer guys. As is the case with Kim Dotcom.
monetus 8y ago
He hired Eric Holder, who seemed to have significantly changed during his time at Covington and Burlington. Holder wanted fines, not prison.
- pas 8y ago
  Yes, and the DoJ got a lof of DPAs (Deferred Prosecution Agreements) and billions of USD. And they spent that on various programs, that helped some very much in need, but not exactly those who the banks profited off of. And so a lot of people ended up feeling that the government did nothing for their plight.
bobwaycott 8y ago
I believe you mean prosecuting & prosecute, not persecuting & persecute.

This doesn't explain why the Obama administration did not bother persecuting bank executives. And there was plenty to persecute then for (e.g. laundering money for drug cartels).

TAForObvReasons 8y ago

The answer according to James Comey was a "chickenshit" culture wherein people were afraid to take on cases that weren't a slam dunk. And it was difficult to make a case that bank executives were guilty thanks to the complex structure involved.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
Do you think there could be some semi-legitimate reasons for that behavior, beyond just laziness and cowardice? Cost is a big issue in the justice system. Of course, you should still go after murders (and other serious offenders), even if it's hard and costly. At least some of the issues in our justice system stem from not having the resources to handle every case fairly. Every criminal case should be fully investigated and tried in court, but the system would break under these conditions. So you end up with a highly perverse system based on extortion, and heavily biased depending on socioeconomic status. Sometimes it works "too well", other times it doesn't work at all.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  Yes, and it's a problem that affects tech as well: KPI When you award promotions based on, say, the total number or total percentage of successful convictions, then the whole culture starts to optimize for that. Given the sheer number of cases that could be pursued, naturally the easiest-to-win cases will be selected, and more often than not those are small potatoes.
- msiyer 8y ago
  Cost is the most important concern. Various factors add to it. Time taken to deliver justice, if it ever can be, is the major factor. The justice system is set up like a religion. Even a group of victims with a common influential adversary would find it difficult to carry on for decades with unwavering intensity.

rtkwe 8y ago

Prosecuting someone for a crime like that is tough you have to prove out of the whole company that the people you're prosecuting actually committed the crime. That's hard because the nature of corporations is to diffuse responsibility and decision making.

mtgx 8y ago
BS. European countries have prosecuted banking crime just fine. Plus, we have Eric Holder on the record for saying he wouldn't go after bank executives because it could "hurt the economy", a reason I rank right up there with "terrorists attacked us for our freedoms."
- qaq 8y ago
  Hmm care to show high level execs of say HSBC being prosecuted for money laundering?
oldgradstudent 8y ago
They could have treated it just as any other type of organized crime. Start at the bottom and go up the chain of command.
pas 8y ago
There is a long list of "reporting requirements" for financial institutions, and a lot of these is about responsibility. Group heads have to sign for their group, department leads for their department, branch managers for their branch, etc. And the CEO of course is responsible for all the branches / departments. This makes it possible to make a case out of ignoring warning signs, ignoring possible whistleblowers about illegal conduct, etc. Usually the Oversight Authority should be able to set at least some rules of these reports to help them set up the right responsibility (and thus incentive) structure (both for prevention and for whistleblowing).

jarsin 8y ago

The main leverage prosecutors have now days is you are going to be financially ruined trying to defend yourself. Innocent or not it's a lose lose for normal people. The prosecutor's don't have this leverage over the rich.

chii 8y ago
> The main leverage prosecutors have now days is you are going to be financially ruined trying to defend yourself. which is the very epitome of injustice. Prosecution should be about finding out the truth, and finding out parties responsible for a wrong (and force them to make amends somehow).
joobus 8y ago
Gov can have that power over the rich too. Gov will freeze all their assets, claiming they were gotten illegally, and then even rich people can't pay their lawyers. See Kim Dotcom, for example. It's not that gov can't prosecute the rich; they just don't want to.
- jarsin 8y ago
  Yes the Gov prosecutes the rich from time to time, but it typically only happens if one rich guy pisses off a bunch of other richer guys. As is the case with Kim Dotcom.

monetus 8y ago

He hired Eric Holder, who seemed to have significantly changed during his time at Covington and Burlington. Holder wanted fines, not prison.

pas 8y ago
Yes, and the DoJ got a lof of DPAs (Deferred Prosecution Agreements) and billions of USD. And they spent that on various programs, that helped some very much in need, but not exactly those who the banks profited off of. And so a lot of people ended up feeling that the government did nothing for their plight.

bobwaycott 8y ago

I believe you mean prosecuting & prosecute, not persecuting & persecute.