3 ms·

> Evading the law (whether the court or a regulatory body such as the SEC [civil] or DOJ [criminal]) is typically a "bad thing" for the person or people intendi

> Evading the law (whether the court or a regulatory body such as the SEC [civil] or DOJ [criminal]) is typically a "bad thing" for the person or people intending to or successfully doing so. Oh wow. If only this were true. If only they were so diligent in punishing other kinds of things. Here's something I read recently, from the aftermath of the Libor scandal: https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-waivers-granted-dissenting-statement.html https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-waivers-granted-dis... . Really highlights how crazy this whole thing is and how there are really two qualitatively different classes with two different sets of rules in our society.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
joe_the_user 5y ago
I think the gp just meant that when a person comes to the attention of courts and regulatory bodies, that the person had the intention of evading these authorities will taken badly by them and likely result in more sanctions than just what would happen for breaking the various rules. All the different ways people evade authorities is a large topic. But, you're right, friends in high places help.
lmm 5y ago
Nonsense. There's severe punishment for acts that demonstrate clear malice (e.g. violence, possession of substances well-known to be illegal) and light punishment for ambiguous cases (making a subjective judgement call in a particular way), at every level of society. If anything the error is in the other direction - legislation that requires people to make subjective noisy judgments and get them right is futile and absurd.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Nope. Clear malice was proven beyond doubt in Libor fixing, in credits ratings fixing in the leadup to 2008, etc. There's severe punishment for crimes committed by regular people, and no punishment for crimes committed by wealthy people, even if all things considered the latter manage to harm millions of people with their actions.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > Clear malice was proven beyond doubt in Libor fixing Where? As far as I saw there was one bank that thought it was obeying a discreet request from the government, and a bunch of banks where traders said usual trader nonsense (which is "malicious" in a sense, but it's very much part of the norms and culture of trading and the expected functioning of a market, just like a good lawyer should make their case as strongly as possible regardless of their personal beliefs about what happened). > even if all things considered the latter manage to harm millions of people with their actions. Who was harmed? If there was any effect of Libor fixing, it was likely that people paid slightly lower interest rates on their mortgages.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

joe_the_user 5y ago

I think the gp just meant that when a person comes to the attention of courts and regulatory bodies, that the person had the intention of evading these authorities will taken badly by them and likely result in more sanctions than just what would happen for breaking the various rules. All the different ways people evade authorities is a large topic. But, you're right, friends in high places help.

lmm 5y ago

Nonsense. There's severe punishment for acts that demonstrate clear malice (e.g. violence, possession of substances well-known to be illegal) and light punishment for ambiguous cases (making a subjective judgement call in a particular way), at every level of society. If anything the error is in the other direction - legislation that requires people to make subjective noisy judgments and get them right is futile and absurd.

andrepd 5y ago
Nope. Clear malice was proven beyond doubt in Libor fixing, in credits ratings fixing in the leadup to 2008, etc. There's severe punishment for crimes committed by regular people, and no punishment for crimes committed by wealthy people, even if all things considered the latter manage to harm millions of people with their actions.
- lmm 5y ago
  > Clear malice was proven beyond doubt in Libor fixing Where? As far as I saw there was one bank that thought it was obeying a discreet request from the government, and a bunch of banks where traders said usual trader nonsense (which is "malicious" in a sense, but it's very much part of the norms and culture of trading and the expected functioning of a market, just like a good lawyer should make their case as strongly as possible regardless of their personal beliefs about what happened). > even if all things considered the latter manage to harm millions of people with their actions. Who was harmed? If there was any effect of Libor fixing, it was likely that people paid slightly lower interest rates on their mortgages.