You're conflating issues here. Fraud is still criminal. Some made bad business decisions, some have committed fraud. Some have made money, some have lost. The o

You're conflating issues here. Fraud is still criminal. Some made bad business decisions, some have committed fraud. Some have made money, some have lost. The ones which made bad business decisions lost money. That's not what the book is about. > That's not a good point of evidence. The laws in question are regarding government employees self-dealing by awarding contracts in exchange for employment/favors later. This happens all the time. It's called the 'Revolving door'. It's not that hard to prove, it's just that federal prosecutors don't bother instrumenting the cases, unless there is political gain from doing so. The laws in question I was replying to, were 'Federal laws', not specific to conflicts of interest, but even so.. I'm not advocating for the book, I read it and found it both interesting and representative of the recent enforcement efforts by the government which nobody can deny have been sub-par. Most of this is because of the broken incentive structures for prosecutors. Take for example the Equifax breach in which only two employees have been indicted and convicted of insider trading, with penalties totaling a whopping 160k. That's some vigorous enforcement right there. Another examples of vigorous enforcement is what happened to the tobacco executives after lying to Congress. Or.. other people who also lied to Congress https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-congress-what-happened-them-n941936 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/5-people-who-lied-... So yeah.. vigorous.