6 ms·

What I take from this is that you pretty much can get away with anything (including terrorism) as long as you do it from within a corporation and have enough mo

by ivanca 12y ago

What I take from this is that you pretty much can get away with anything (including terrorism) as long as you do it from within a corporation and have enough money to pay the USA government any fine it imposes.

joosters 12y ago
$9 billion is hardly 'getting away with anything'...
- Drakim 12y ago
  It depends, if the thing you were doing net you profits above $9 billion then it's not so painful.
- Zikes 12y ago
  The corporation is responsible for that fine, not the individuals responsible for running the corporation. If you were a skilled member of the finance industry, do you think you'd have any trouble at all finding a job elsewhere if your current company suddenly fell on hard times? Would it even be necessary, given the type of "severance package" likely to be awarded?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > If you were a skilled member of the finance industry, do you think you'd have any trouble at all finding a job elsewhere if your current company suddenly fell on hard times? Would it even be necessary, given the type of "severance package" likely to be awarded? Do you think the people dismissed at the direction of the criminal prosecutors as part of a prosecution that also caused their employer to receive a fine nearly equal to its annual pre-tax income got generous severance packages? And, beyond that, do you think that, that the reason they left their last job -- including the condition imposed on BNP Paribas not to rehire them again even indirectly -- has no impact on the employability elsewhere in the industry?
radmuzom 12y ago
True. And I also think we are going to see many more like these unless humans, rather than corporations, are prosecuted for these kind of incidents.
lostcolony 12y ago
We've already decided corporations can have political beliefs (Citizens United) and religious beliefs (Hobby Lobby); I say it's high time we also decide they can also be declared criminal, and be subject to more than just fines.
- joosters 12y ago
  What? Like put them behind bars?
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    The CEO and all the board of directors? I think things would shape up pretty quickly.
    - joosters 12y ago
      Ah, but that's dealing with individuals and not the corporation. But I also don't understand the lack of criminal convictions. The article mentions damning internal documents that show individuals within the bank knowingly breaking the rules. Why aren't these people being charged? They shouldn't be protected simply because they were working for a large corporation.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    An equivalent of jail time could be government ordering all company's offices to cease operation immediately and remain closed for few weeks.
    - Loughla 12y ago
      Because if zero tolerance policies taught us anything it's that across the board punishment, even for people who have little to no control over the action, is a great idea?
      - rprospero 12y ago
Zikes 12y ago
Not even the latter, as those corporations could simply declare bankruptcy and the individuals responsible could just walk away with no criminal record.
chriscool 12y ago
Yeah, you even pretty much can get away with money-laundering for drug cartels too, see: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo... But note that dealing with Iran, Sudan and some other countries forbiden by the US State Department is legal in many european countries.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Sure. But they knew exactly what they were doing. They took a risk in order to make a profit, and it looks like it's going to cost them a lot more than the money they made from it, which is, IMHO, how it should work most of the time (though I'd also like to see individual executives prosecuted). As a French national, I have extremely little sympathy for them. Maybe they will think twice about breaking the rules next time.
evmar 12y ago
I found this quote particularly sad: "The prosecutors offered the banks a choice: turn over records related to Iranian banks or face a criminal case." If it's a criminal case, you'd think they could subpoena the necessary records. It's not something to be making a plea bargain over.
- mark212 12y ago
  avoiding a criminal prosecution is a very big thing. Banks are typically much more eager to pay a massive civil fine rather than a much smaller criminal fine. Having any kind of conviction as a corporation disqualifies a corporation (particularly a bank) from all kinds of things that it's effectively a death sentence. A major example of this was Arthur Andersen -- the criminal conviction for aiding the Enron fraud was enough to kill the business entirely, even though the conviction was later overturned on appeal.
  - mikegioia 12y ago
    I think what evmar is saying is that the US District Attorney should not have given BNP the choice, but instead just filed the criminal case against them. They could have gotten the necessary documents through the subpoena, so the offer to comply and take the civil case is meaningless. What I think a lot of people would want to see is someone going to jail for this, hence the criminal case.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > If it's a criminal case, you'd think they could subpoena the necessary records. Yes, but they may not be able to meet the threshold of not having a criminal case against the bank, as such thrown out without evidence that the bank was obstructing the investigation into criminal behavior for which there was significant evidence occurred at the bank. So there can certainly be some sense where obstruction by the bank provides additional reason to believe that what is going on is criminal action by the bank, rather than merely criminal action at the bank. > It's not something to be making a plea bargain over. When both civil and criminal charges by the government could potentially apply to the same conduct, limiting action to civil charges is a frequent negotiating tool in seeking a settlement that achieves the objectives of stopping the conduct, imposing a penalty for the conduct, and providing access to information necessary to assess the scope of the conduct and to assure that it is, in fact, stopped.

by ivanca 12y ago

joosters 12y ago

$9 billion is hardly 'getting away with anything'...

Drakim 12y ago
It depends, if the thing you were doing net you profits above $9 billion then it's not so painful.
Zikes 12y ago
The corporation is responsible for that fine, not the individuals responsible for running the corporation. If you were a skilled member of the finance industry, do you think you'd have any trouble at all finding a job elsewhere if your current company suddenly fell on hard times? Would it even be necessary, given the type of "severance package" likely to be awarded?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > If you were a skilled member of the finance industry, do you think you'd have any trouble at all finding a job elsewhere if your current company suddenly fell on hard times? Would it even be necessary, given the type of "severance package" likely to be awarded? Do you think the people dismissed at the direction of the criminal prosecutors as part of a prosecution that also caused their employer to receive a fine nearly equal to its annual pre-tax income got generous severance packages? And, beyond that, do you think that, that the reason they left their last job -- including the condition imposed on BNP Paribas not to rehire them again even indirectly -- has no impact on the employability elsewhere in the industry?

radmuzom 12y ago

True. And I also think we are going to see many more like these unless humans, rather than corporations, are prosecuted for these kind of incidents.

lostcolony 12y ago

We've already decided corporations can have political beliefs (Citizens United) and religious beliefs (Hobby Lobby); I say it's high time we also decide they can also be declared criminal, and be subject to more than just fines.

joosters 12y ago
What? Like put them behind bars?
- bitJericho 12y ago
  The CEO and all the board of directors? I think things would shape up pretty quickly.
  - joosters 12y ago
    Ah, but that's dealing with individuals and not the corporation. But I also don't understand the lack of criminal convictions. The article mentions damning internal documents that show individuals within the bank knowingly breaking the rules. Why aren't these people being charged? They shouldn't be protected simply because they were working for a large corporation.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  An equivalent of jail time could be government ordering all company's offices to cease operation immediately and remain closed for few weeks.
  - Loughla 12y ago
    Because if zero tolerance policies taught us anything it's that across the board punishment, even for people who have little to no control over the action, is a great idea?
    - rprospero 12y ago

Zikes 12y ago

Not even the latter, as those corporations could simply declare bankruptcy and the individuals responsible could just walk away with no criminal record.

chriscool 12y ago

Yeah, you even pretty much can get away with money-laundering for drug cartels too, see: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo... But note that dealing with Iran, Sudan and some other countries forbiden by the US State Department is legal in many european countries.

mercurial 12y ago
Sure. But they knew exactly what they were doing. They took a risk in order to make a profit, and it looks like it's going to cost them a lot more than the money they made from it, which is, IMHO, how it should work most of the time (though I'd also like to see individual executives prosecuted). As a French national, I have extremely little sympathy for them. Maybe they will think twice about breaking the rules next time.

evmar 12y ago

I found this quote particularly sad: "The prosecutors offered the banks a choice: turn over records related to Iranian banks or face a criminal case." If it's a criminal case, you'd think they could subpoena the necessary records. It's not something to be making a plea bargain over.

mark212 12y ago
avoiding a criminal prosecution is a very big thing. Banks are typically much more eager to pay a massive civil fine rather than a much smaller criminal fine. Having any kind of conviction as a corporation disqualifies a corporation (particularly a bank) from all kinds of things that it's effectively a death sentence. A major example of this was Arthur Andersen -- the criminal conviction for aiding the Enron fraud was enough to kill the business entirely, even though the conviction was later overturned on appeal.
- mikegioia 12y ago
  I think what evmar is saying is that the US District Attorney should not have given BNP the choice, but instead just filed the criminal case against them. They could have gotten the necessary documents through the subpoena, so the offer to comply and take the civil case is meaningless. What I think a lot of people would want to see is someone going to jail for this, hence the criminal case.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> If it's a criminal case, you'd think they could subpoena the necessary records. Yes, but they may not be able to meet the threshold of not having a criminal case against the bank, as such thrown out without evidence that the bank was obstructing the investigation into criminal behavior for which there was significant evidence occurred at the bank. So there can certainly be some sense where obstruction by the bank provides additional reason to believe that what is going on is criminal action by the bank, rather than merely criminal action at the bank. > It's not something to be making a plea bargain over. When both civil and criminal charges by the government could potentially apply to the same conduct, limiting action to civil charges is a frequent negotiating tool in seeking a settlement that achieves the objectives of stopping the conduct, imposing a penalty for the conduct, and providing access to information necessary to assess the scope of the conduct and to assure that it is, in fact, stopped.