10 ms·

If it weren't so depressing it'd be incredibly hilarious how blatant and open the corruption here is, as if anyone on planet earth is gonna buy this BS story.

• amelius 3y ago
  Fines? You mean detention.
  • aziaziazi 3y ago
    Can’t you pay to get out of detention in the US?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • jprete 3y ago
      Do you mean bail? The only thing bail does is get the defendant out of jail until the trial, and the only (Constitutional) reason to jail someone before trial is to make sure they show up. E.g. Elizabeth Holmes got out on bail, but just recently went in to serve her sentence.
      • aziaziazi 3y ago
        Indeed I meant bail. I always thought you can avoid jail that way in that country and very pleased you taught me I’m wrong, this seems a more fair system. Not thankful for the downvoters although they probably thought I was cynical or something… but hey better have knowledge than points.
        • Floegipoky 3y ago
          > the only (Constitutional) reason to jail someone before trial is to make sure they show up Well cynicism is definitely called for wrt bail, because it's regularly used for a very different purpose. It's normal for people accused of crimes to have to wait over a year for their trial in this country, and the courts often intentionally set bail so high that the accused can't possibly afford it. They are forced to choose between sitting in jail that whole time while their life evaporates, or they can plea guilty to a crime they may or may not have committed; the actual punishment is often less severe than being found innocent at trial. The prosecution can repeatedly push back the trial to keep the pressure on. Since healthcare access is almost always tied to employment, people plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit every day in this country so that their kids don't lose their access to healthcare. Just the sort of systemic, everyday corruption that we're supposed to pretend can't happen here.
  • subsequentmask 3y ago
    Taking away many billions from billionaires is worse for them than detention.
    • DonHopkins 3y ago
      Why not both?
    • hinata08 3y ago
      no, it's just a cost to do business. They still have billions after you charged them billions. And charging companies with fines is ridiculous IMO. There are always humans who made decisions ultimately. And charging companies (not them) is just a "get out of jail and enjoy Hawaii" card for them. After they cheated, they probably had the promotions, money, golden parachutes, and left the company after bleeding it out and hurting it anyway. So why would you charge the company a second time ? Why not them ?
      • GolfPopper 3y ago
        Because a key element of the American corporate/justice system is to avoid negative consequences for individuals with wealth and connections, so long as they "follow the rules" when harming the public for private profit?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• hinata08 3y ago
  Why fines ? Fines for this type of accident should be the permanent removal of the banking license. What kind of company can you trust if evidence can be deleted "by accident" ?
  • yehosef 3y ago
    Governments do not just "remove the banking license" of JP Morgan.
    • Ialdaboth 3y ago
      Yes, this is precisely the problem.
    • hinata08 3y ago
      Shame I have never just deleted millions of emails and pieces of evidence in a listed company, especially one that falls under the SOX act (it implies some governance.) Did they have the IT governance or not ?
    • zx8080 3y ago
      Does this sometimes lead to "we are immortals, can do whatever we want"? Actually not whatever. But apparently some borders are quite thin.
  • grugagag 3y ago
    Proportionl fines that dent seriously into their profits ensures this does not happen again. But usually the fines end up being slaps on wrists which ensures continuity of these schemes
  • BowBun 3y ago
    JP Morgan is the very definition of 'too big to fail'. Any actions against them to that degree would be self-sabotaging by any country. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but that's the reality right now.
    • prirun 3y ago
• andsoitis 3y ago
  Do you really think JP Morgan, which has about 300,000 employees, has a secret network of corrupt actors at an administrative level to carry out something like this on purpose without someone blowing the whistle? I think this is more likely: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262
  • mulletbum 3y ago
    As someone who does this work, I agree. This sounds like a IT Operations messed something up on its way to the people who do the lawyer work. Never had it happen to us, but I could see me handing something off to others in the Operations Org and having accidents happen.
    • chucksta 3y ago
      Have a hard time believing you. Do you work in a area requiring compliance for PCI or Sarbox? This should never "just happen" with any competent team.
      • mulletbum 3y ago
        Yes I do and yes it could happen. It could simply be someone accidentally taking off the lit hold on a Friday after a bad day. Then not realizing it till Monday. A bunch of data would be gone.
    • agentgumshoe 3y ago
      This sounds like something that would occur in an industry not heavily regulated. That's not JPM.
      • alephnerd 3y ago
        Regulation =/= Implementation Capability The implementers and auditors themselves get bogged down by red tape and/or the game of telephone between various departments, leading to information and Acceptance Criterias falling between the cracks.
• latency-guy2 3y ago
  Do establish in what way these fines are at all reasonable or appropriate. I don't think you know to what level this data loss is if you're being this reactionary.
  • sensanaty 3y ago
    > reasonable or appropriate That's the point, they shouldn't be "reasonable" nor "appropriate" for an entity as large and with as many resources as JPM. Surely with the 300k employees they have and the literal infinite well of money they have, there's a few competent individuals working there to prevent these sort of "mistakes" from happening, and if not then they should either find some competent people, or cease to exist. What's reasonable about charging them 4 million? It's not even a drop in the bucket, it's a singular molecule of water getting inserted into the bucket if we're talking about JPM.
    • latency-guy2 3y ago
      So, you want the fine to be unreasonable, and inappropriate? That's your stance? Why should anyone care for your opinion, your ideas, or your morals?
      • sensanaty 3y ago
        When it comes to companies like JPM that blatantly disregard the law constantly and are never given more than tiny little taps on the wrist, yes? If it were up to me we'd start rounding up every C-Suite we could, let's see how much longer they'll keep trying to get away with things like this after that. Tell me, what exactly is reasonable or appropriate or fair about such a pittance of a fine for such blatant corruption? We're not talking about some random mom & pop shop, we're talking about the largest fucking bank in the States and arguably the entire world here. Someone in the thread already did some rough back-of-the-napkin math, this 4 million is a bit less than 20 minutes of income for them, in what universe is that a reasonable fine?
  • agentgumshoe 3y ago
    In a regulated industry, the regulator would absolutely issue fines and threats of license if gross incompetence led to them not upholding their regulatory duties... Well in some ideal world that would happen, but ha, not likely. Instead they'll just have to have some 'extra' meetings with the regulator and report on their remediations later.
• giantg2 3y ago
  I find the story or incorrect archive settings/setup to be reasonably plausible and even likely. I work in finance and misconfiguration of systems are not that uncommon. Testing and reviewing archive settings is often not very thorough. For example, I was working on a system that handles holdings and trading information at the fund level which covers AUM that starts with a T and ends in rillions. There was an SQL injection vulnerability with schema owner access. Luckily this was an internal app, but still there are trade desk devs who could accidentally paste a drop table statement with a name collison. Anyways, I brought all this up to the principal. I was told this isn't a real big deal because they have real-time backups. I asked if they ever tested the backups... no. Do they have procedures for restoring from backups... no. They go nuts if there's a 5 minute outage, so how long would it take to restore... no idea. Trust me ignorance is very believable, even in regulated industries.
  • kindatrue 3y ago
    >I asked if they ever tested the backups... no. THIS. I briefly worked for a major European bank. There was a system that was backed up on tape. The way they checked the backups was to visually look at the tape spool - before sending the tapes off to a mountain to be preserved. One day, they needed something from a back up. Sure enough, the tapes were simply blank due a bug in the back up script.
    • giantg2 3y ago
      "The way they checked the backups was to visually look at the tape spool" Lol
  • 36479669thrw 3y ago
    > I find the story or incorrect archive settings/setup to be reasonably plausible and even likely. I work in finance and misconfiguration of systems are not that uncommon. Testing and reviewing archive settings is often not very thorough. GP's point stands: they should be fined to a degree that it becomes clear to management that these "not uncommon" practices must become very uncommon.
• ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
  First of all: your current society has no chance at a future, AI overlords, mogul trillionaires, climate change and so on being the least currently concerning of your issues. Nevertheless, one counter-intuitive policy which would end corporate control [1] (hence will never be implemented, again, no future for you) is supra-unitary taxation: effectively, tax rates above 100%, ensuring that the corporation has by default a lifetime (like a person they wish to be). Once the forever-in-debt corporation gets past a certain level of debt, it gets liquidated. Of course, corporations affected by this would have a certain scale (above $10 trillion, let's say) and a certain domain of activity (embedded AI, synthetic biology, nuclear fusion, asteroid mining, and similar). [1] 2023, Claire Provost, Matt Kennard, Silent Coup. How Corporations Overthrew Democracy, Bloomsbury Academic, https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/silent-coup-9781350270008 https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/silent-coup-9781350270008
• FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  I say the penalty should start with J and end with ail.
• bee_rider 3y ago
  No need to fine them, if this stuff is needed in a lawsuit just let the other side make adverse inferences by default whenever the data could have been deleted.