4 ms·

Because they can threaten the people in charge of holding them accountable: > To be clear, the decision of whether to indict a corporation, defer prosecution,

by css 7y ago

Because they can threaten the people in charge of holding them accountable: > To be clear, the decision of whether to indict a corporation, defer prosecution, or decline altogether is not one that I, or anyone in the Criminal Division, take lightly. We are frequently on the receiving end of presentations from defense counsel, CEOs, and economists who argue that the collateral consequences of an indictment would be devastating for their client. > In my conference room, over the years, I have heard sober predictions that a company or bank might fail if we indict, that innocent employees could lose their jobs, that entire industries may be affected, and even that global markets will feel the effects. Sometimes – though, let me stress, not always – these presentations are compelling. https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-lanny-breuer-speaks-new-york-city-bar-association https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-genera...

hanniabu 7y ago
> a company or bank might fail if we indict, that innocent employees could lose their jobs, that entire industries may be affected, and even that global markets will feel the effects Isn't this what capitalism is all about? If they can't do the job then somebody else will come up on it's place.
- dec0dedab0de 7y ago
  Capitalism is about personal responsibility, corporations are about avoiding (some) personal responsibility. If certain types of companies commonly failed harshly because of indictments then people would be reluctant to get jobs with those types of companies. So ideally the companies would have to pay more to outweigh the risk.
- JackFr 7y ago
  The original speech which is quoted is an outline for the use of 'deferred prosecution agreements' office which are effectively corporate plea bargains by the DOJ. The public policy problem is that if a corporation is indicted, legally they are presumed innocent but the market may not see it that way. Though the company might be eventually fully exonerated in court, they might have driven to bankruptcy by the market. By agreeing to a DPA, the company can treat it as a pseudo-regulatory matter. This, of course, has critics on both sides. On the one hand some critics feel this has allowed corporations to engage in ongoing criminal behavior without ever really paying the full price. On the other hand, people have criticized the Attorney General's office for using the threat of indictments on flimsy grounds as a means to create a backdoor regulatory regime with no legislative basis.
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    My biggest issue with it from a public policy standpoint is that we don't have any problem putting the same burden on individual people. A person accused of a crime they didn't commit runs the same exact risk of bankruptcy and financial ruin if they can't make bail (and sometimes, even if they can), despite the same presumption of innocence. How are we supposed to reconcile giving a corporation, with vastly more resources, special consideration that an individual person does not get?
- rolltiide 7y ago
  > Isn't this what capitalism is all about? If they can't do the job then somebody else will come up on it's place. No, because the remaining corporations will be the monopoly and the government will have enshrined them by prosecuting the competitor which is the opposite result of what the government aims to do. yes capitalism is described this way and the tendency towards monopoly is why we don't do what capitalism describes. the government helps avoid monopoly so simply won't take a hand in creating it even if it means letting a competitor get away with murder
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Yeah, but then they're always lenient with the existing major players and harsher with the smaller players, effectively creating a segment where true capitalistic nature doesn't apply. This is similar to a communist party in a way, where once you're elected, you can't be removed from power until you die under your own accord.
graedus 7y ago
Lanny Breuer and his then-boss, Eric Holder, both returned to Covington & Burling following their stint at the DOJ. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and UBS are clients of the firm. Breuer was estimated to take home $4m in compensation in his first year back. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/once-more-through-the-revolving-door-for-justices-breuer/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/once-more-through-th... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/business/dealbook/eric-holder-returns-to-covington-burling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/business/dealbook/eric-ho...
asdff 7y ago
So don't indict the corporation, indict the executives making these decisions. The U.S. loves to issue slap on the wrist fines, but actually going after specific individuals for white collared crime does not ever seem to happen in highly publicized cases.

by css 7y ago

hanniabu 7y ago

> a company or bank might fail if we indict, that innocent employees could lose their jobs, that entire industries may be affected, and even that global markets will feel the effects Isn't this what capitalism is all about? If they can't do the job then somebody else will come up on it's place.

dec0dedab0de 7y ago
Capitalism is about personal responsibility, corporations are about avoiding (some) personal responsibility. If certain types of companies commonly failed harshly because of indictments then people would be reluctant to get jobs with those types of companies. So ideally the companies would have to pay more to outweigh the risk.
JackFr 7y ago
The original speech which is quoted is an outline for the use of 'deferred prosecution agreements' office which are effectively corporate plea bargains by the DOJ. The public policy problem is that if a corporation is indicted, legally they are presumed innocent but the market may not see it that way. Though the company might be eventually fully exonerated in court, they might have driven to bankruptcy by the market. By agreeing to a DPA, the company can treat it as a pseudo-regulatory matter. This, of course, has critics on both sides. On the one hand some critics feel this has allowed corporations to engage in ongoing criminal behavior without ever really paying the full price. On the other hand, people have criticized the Attorney General's office for using the threat of indictments on flimsy grounds as a means to create a backdoor regulatory regime with no legislative basis.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  My biggest issue with it from a public policy standpoint is that we don't have any problem putting the same burden on individual people. A person accused of a crime they didn't commit runs the same exact risk of bankruptcy and financial ruin if they can't make bail (and sometimes, even if they can), despite the same presumption of innocence. How are we supposed to reconcile giving a corporation, with vastly more resources, special consideration that an individual person does not get?
rolltiide 7y ago
> Isn't this what capitalism is all about? If they can't do the job then somebody else will come up on it's place. No, because the remaining corporations will be the monopoly and the government will have enshrined them by prosecuting the competitor which is the opposite result of what the government aims to do. yes capitalism is described this way and the tendency towards monopoly is why we don't do what capitalism describes. the government helps avoid monopoly so simply won't take a hand in creating it even if it means letting a competitor get away with murder
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Yeah, but then they're always lenient with the existing major players and harsher with the smaller players, effectively creating a segment where true capitalistic nature doesn't apply. This is similar to a communist party in a way, where once you're elected, you can't be removed from power until you die under your own accord.

graedus 7y ago

Lanny Breuer and his then-boss, Eric Holder, both returned to Covington & Burling following their stint at the DOJ. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and UBS are clients of the firm. Breuer was estimated to take home $4m in compensation in his first year back. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/once-more-through-the-revolving-door-for-justices-breuer/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/once-more-through-th... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/business/dealbook/eric-holder-returns-to-covington-burling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/business/dealbook/eric-ho...

asdff 7y ago

So don't indict the corporation, indict the executives making these decisions. The U.S. loves to issue slap on the wrist fines, but actually going after specific individuals for white collared crime does not ever seem to happen in highly publicized cases.