3 ms·
I wonder: While Tabibi says that's just several weeks worth to HSBC, then what would have been an appropriate amount without threatening the financial system?
by volume 13y ago
I wonder: While Tabibi says that's just several weeks worth to HSBC, then what would have been an appropriate amount without threatening the financial system?
I see the logic of how unfair it is for no jail time for anyone at HSBC. Perhaps this is something that is highly unlikely or too steep a battle to fight. Maybe then, at least the settlement could have been more than the "record $1.92 billion settlement".
- jaynos 13y agoBanks have proven time and time again that fines are not going to stop them from doing illegal activity. If you throw a few execs in jail, well, people will start to think more about their future actions. The current system of bonuses for performance and minimal chance of a US investigation that leads to a fine, at most, encourage illegal/shady behavior. Throw in the risk of jail time and people will think twice before doing anything might be illegal. You'd also get a lot more whistleblowers trying to cover their asses.
- volume 13y agoYa, I just am not familiar enough with the issue to know if 1.92 billion was appropriate or not relative to the damage of any other wide scale settlement. How about the $200 billion tobacco settlement as a baseline? Were HSBC's damages 1% what was settled in the tobacco case in 1998? Disclaimer: I'm an outsider to the legal profession, so pardon me if it's a silly comparison.