5 ms·
5 weeks of income. Let's say that again, 5 weeks. Now, 1.9B isn't nothing, but for a company with this type of income, and a market cap of around £130B, and pr
by tibbon 13y ago
5 weeks of income. Let's say that again, 5 weeks.
Now, 1.9B isn't nothing, but for a company with this type of income, and a market cap of around £130B, and profits in the 10's of billions... it approaches it.
Can you imagine an individual being arrested for this type of behavior, and in the end losing only 5 weeks of income with no jailtime?
Too big to fail. Too big to arrest. Too big to shutdown. Congrats to the banking industry, you've won.
- dgesang 13y agoNow it's on us to bring them down ...
- farinasa 13y agoYeah we'll get right on that.
- Guvante 13y agoBad comparison, you cannot compare their total income to the fine, you have to compare their estimated profits from the scheme to the fine. If they estimated they have made $1 billion from the scheme, doubling that is a little lenient, but not totally out of the question. Unfortunately it is impossible to judge the situation without all of the facts. Nearly anything sounds damning when you know that guilt is involved.
- tibbon 13y agoBut if I'm caught selling something illicit, my personal fine isn't based off a 2x multiplier of the potential profit. That type of basis only acts as a deterrent if they are caught for their actions at least 50% of the time. Otherwise, if a company could successfully do something like this 3 times, and only get caught once- then it is rational that they should do it more.
- Guvante 13y agoI did say the fine was lient, 2x is awfully small. However comparing it to the total profits of the company is silly. Personal things are different, laws have an easier time sticking hard penalties to people. You can't throw a company in jail, for a number of reasons. And since it is hard to pin anybody for it, you have to go back to an "appropriate" fine.
- tibbon 13y agoI guess in my mind what I'm thinking is that individuals are often decimated by criminal/civil judgements, as sometimes are small/medium companies, yet we almost never see legal action threaten the real survival or profitability of a massive company. Just as people are hugely disincentivized to do illegal activity for fear that it will totally destroy their lives. Companies however have no such fear. There's little personal liability, and at worst there's a ding to profit for the year and investors grumble a bit. But overall, its just a headache- not a severe deterrent to acting poorly in the end. I mean, what if we did actually throw executives in jail? Even for short periods of time (3-6 months?) It could create a culture where from the top they would have incentive to support only completely above-board behavior.
- gress 13y agoIf the penalty is only double the expected profit, then schemes of this nature are worth doing if the chance of being caught is 1/3 or lower.
- a3n 13y agoAlmost any amount of money is nothing, if no one goes to jail. That money is mainly Other People's Money, not the executives and employees who could conceivably stand trial. No one was hurt but the shareholders, but apparently not enough for said shareholders to abandon association with a profitable money launderer. It's just bidness.
- charonn0 13y agoDealers and users aren't the only one's the Federal government will destroy. Dispensaries and even their landlords, doing things that are explicitly legal under state laws, run the risk of losing everything and/or going to jail if the local US Attorney has a bad day.