Then there is no noticeable cost for the rich perpetrator. The cost to him is beyond negligible even at $1,000. He can easily afford the cost of the fine, and i

Then there is no noticeable cost for the rich perpetrator. The cost to him is beyond negligible even at $1,000. He can easily afford the cost of the fine, and if he chooses to steal all the time, the eventual cost of having to pay it will be a drop in the hat. This is exactly the problem with bank fines, they become costs of business, not deterrents from illegal activity. It's like speeding tickets, a speeding ticket isn't a deterrent if you can continue to pay the cost. It simply punishes those whose marginal income is deeply affected by the cost of the ticket, in essence it deters the poor(est). The perpetrator in your case, should be charge $500,000 because he has more than enough money to not steal. How Finland deals with speed tickets comes to mind as the correct approach: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-...