3 ms·

But is that what the government was gunning for them about or were they doing an 'Al capone' and targeting tax fraud? Without details of the settlement, it's ju

But is that what the government was gunning for them about or were they doing an 'Al capone' and targeting tax fraud? Without details of the settlement, it's just projection to say that's what the settlement concerned. The argument isn't that the legal system should act, the argument is that the justice system should be transparent--especially when the people issuing the punishment are collecting the payout. Without transparency you create a perverse incentive for the bureaucratic agencies to hunt for targets, drum up charges, and collect windfalls. That's not in the interest of justice or a equitable legal system.

jbooth 12y ago
The AG doesn't walk home with an extra B in the bank after a settlement. He's not collecting the payout. As far as drumming up charges and collecting windfalls.. you think these companies with their legal departments would just hand that money over if they liked their position in court? You think things like "polluted the whole gulf of mexico" is a case of charges being drummed up? I would have liked to see these cases go to trial, too. But, from the DoJ's perspective, with the manpower they have, if they can wrap up a settlement and move on to the next case, that's a case they wouldn't have investigated if they were busy with litigation. If you really want to be upset about this type of thing, you should look into how often it affects normal people with normal criminal charges.