5 ms·

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

by 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.
zhengyi13 12y ago
In addition to what's said below, if the prosecutors are being driven by federal/national-level concerns, then the goal is probably less about punishing a bank's officers, and more about getting more information on hostile nation states, and possibly financially neutering them. That's powerful, and far further up the chain of national interests. Apart from that, my sincere apologies for arguing even slightly against against jail time for the banksters.

by evmar 12y ago

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.

zhengyi13 12y ago

In addition to what's said below, if the prosecutors are being driven by federal/national-level concerns, then the goal is probably less about punishing a bank's officers, and more about getting more information on hostile nation states, and possibly financially neutering them. That's powerful, and far further up the chain of national interests. Apart from that, my sincere apologies for arguing even slightly against against jail time for the banksters.