4 ms·

But what I don't quite understand is why there aren't 'perp walks'. It seems odd, because I imagine lots of FBI agents would love to take down guys at a big ban

But what I don't quite understand is why there aren't 'perp walks'. It seems odd, because I imagine lots of FBI agents would love to take down guys at a big bank. I'm not saying this to point out a huge injustice, it's just very curious.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Consultant32452 13y ago
You need attorney generals, which generally run on shoestring budgets, to be willing to criminally prosecute millionaires and billionaires who are likely going to drag court out forever and most likely walk anyways. It's much easier to pop a couple of low level guys for possession to make your numbers look better.
- aestra 13y ago
  Wow. Why are you just randomly making up your own pet theory when the question was actually answered and also had a catchy phrase to go with it? HSBC was "too big to jail" http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/calabria-gilbert-too-big-to-jail/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/calabria-gilbert-too-b... Holder responded by saying he was not talking about HSBC in particular but that, "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." From Holder's statements, it appears that the government was so worried about the dangerous repercussions that could result from prosecuting such a large, complex and globally significant institution that it shielded HSBC from criminal liability.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    That's what he says publicly. The real reason is that he knows prosecuting HSBC's leaders -- a group of very well-connected billionaires -- would end his political career and greatly reduce the amount of future campaign donations financial institutions make to Democratic candidates.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      > The real reason is Oh, so you can speak for the real thoughts on Eric Holder's mind? Really? At the very least you should clarify that you're speculating wildly.
- leterter 13y ago
  The American Dream is dead.
  - JonFish85 13y ago
    I appreciate the irony of saying such a thing here, a message-board set up around the idea that a person with only an idea can change the world.
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      If by "change the world" you mean "raise lots of VC money for selling a small piece of software to people's smartphones or hosting an ad-supported web application on a bank of servers", then yes.
      - jackgavigan 13y ago
        > ..or hosting an ad-supported web application on a bank of servers"... "On a bank of servers"? Surely you meant to say "in the Cloud"? What is this, 1999? ;-)
bradleyjg 13y ago
It's because the big guys wouldn't be the ones to go to jail. They are smart enough to set up the incentives for low and mid level employees to commit crimes while never actually instructing them to do so. The relevant criminal statutes and doctrines require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mens rea of "intentionally" and given how things are done that's all but impossible in these cases. The government could prosecute the low and mid level employees who were the "hitmen". I personally think they should, but there's a bipartisan consensus not to. Some because it would be an indirect attack on the banks (job creators) and others because they see the low and mid level guys as victims rather than co-conspirators.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Consultant32452 13y ago

You need attorney generals, which generally run on shoestring budgets, to be willing to criminally prosecute millionaires and billionaires who are likely going to drag court out forever and most likely walk anyways. It's much easier to pop a couple of low level guys for possession to make your numbers look better.

aestra 13y ago
Wow. Why are you just randomly making up your own pet theory when the question was actually answered and also had a catchy phrase to go with it? HSBC was "too big to jail" http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/calabria-gilbert-too-big-to-jail/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/calabria-gilbert-too-b... Holder responded by saying he was not talking about HSBC in particular but that, "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." From Holder's statements, it appears that the government was so worried about the dangerous repercussions that could result from prosecuting such a large, complex and globally significant institution that it shielded HSBC from criminal liability.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  That's what he says publicly. The real reason is that he knows prosecuting HSBC's leaders -- a group of very well-connected billionaires -- would end his political career and greatly reduce the amount of future campaign donations financial institutions make to Democratic candidates.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > The real reason is Oh, so you can speak for the real thoughts on Eric Holder's mind? Really? At the very least you should clarify that you're speculating wildly.
leterter 13y ago
The American Dream is dead.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  I appreciate the irony of saying such a thing here, a message-board set up around the idea that a person with only an idea can change the world.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    If by "change the world" you mean "raise lots of VC money for selling a small piece of software to people's smartphones or hosting an ad-supported web application on a bank of servers", then yes.
    - jackgavigan 13y ago
      > ..or hosting an ad-supported web application on a bank of servers"... "On a bank of servers"? Surely you meant to say "in the Cloud"? What is this, 1999? ;-)

bradleyjg 13y ago

It's because the big guys wouldn't be the ones to go to jail. They are smart enough to set up the incentives for low and mid level employees to commit crimes while never actually instructing them to do so. The relevant criminal statutes and doctrines require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mens rea of "intentionally" and given how things are done that's all but impossible in these cases. The government could prosecute the low and mid level employees who were the "hitmen". I personally think they should, but there's a bipartisan consensus not to. Some because it would be an indirect attack on the banks (job creators) and others because they see the low and mid level guys as victims rather than co-conspirators.