> "If the outcome of the case results in a criminal conviction against the bank, there are potentially severe reputational and financial risks to the bank, as w

> "If the outcome of the case results in a criminal conviction against the bank, there are potentially severe reputational and financial risks to the bank, as well as the bank’s standing as a licensed financial institution with regulators worldwide." Anybody have any insight into what these consequences realistically are? Malaysia is an irrelevant market to a global investment bank, or it can be. This is precisely why even the LARGEST governments of single markets don't do this specific thing. Malaysia's super-damning criminal charges are just fines. Goldman not paying this out already is just because: A) Its a larger fine than a market of that size can normally get kickbacked B) They want to change the semantical definition of the criminal charge, to civil one and whatever the "due process" version of a legal kickback is called in that country, without admitting or denying anything Everyone knows these are racketeers, does admitting a criminal in an irrelevant country change that? Does "denying but paying off" a criminal charge in an irrelevant country change that? https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/goldman-sachs https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/goldman-sa... Goldman has paid $9,602,492,860 since the year 2000 to various US financial regulators and has suffered no reputational effect while subsequently: losing all of Libya's money in a fund created basically the day after sanctions got lifted. Winning the Malaysia government's business and losing that money too. The only difference is that this time we aren't changing the regime of Malaysia, so answer me this, does it really matter for Goldman?