Skip to main content

View Diary: Organized LIbor: Banksters Rip Off The World (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Problem: No major firm has survived Criminal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl

    prosecution, so they always hit them civilly.

    The DOJ knows if it brings Criminal Charges that's more or less the end of the bank so it rarely does

    From Wall Street Journal:

    Over the years, the government has been reluctant to criminally charge financial firms with wrongdoing because the charge itself can cause a business to implode. Some investing clients can't or won't trade with a firm facing such a taint.

    Indeed, in the more than two-century history of the U.S. financial markets, no major financial firm has survived criminal charges. Securities firms E.F. Hutton & Co. and Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. crumbled after being indicted in the 1980s. In 2002 Arthur Andersen LLP went out of business after it was convicted of obstruction of justice for its role in covering up an investigation into Enron Corp. The conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

    So YES they broke the law but DOJ is very very hesitant to bring Criminal charges.
    •  That's a diary all its own (0+ / 0-)

      imo.

      ;^)

      but if this is true, then is the DOJ is hitting them with civil court fines, which means the use of the term "illegal" is again problematic, or?

      I mean, the fact that there are two different avenues for the DOJ to approach this suggests that while the actions may be against the law, until it's tried as such and a conviction is achieved, is it "illegal"?

      And if it isn't fully "illegal", then what needs to be done to get it that way?

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 05:03:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes it's still illegal, for example. (0+ / 0-)

        Government Sachs CEO Blankfeind punches a child in the face, breaking her jaw and breaking the LAW.

        1. He has committed assault, a criminal offense where a prosecutor has discretion to prosecute or NOT prosecute for criminal assault.

        2. He may be civilly liable for the child's medical bills from the assault.

        1 and 2 are not dependent on each other given different standards (beyond reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence) but both are only possible if Blankfeind broke the law or did something Illegal.

        So DOJ has discretion for whether or not to make a criminal charge against Barclays but they have, indeed, exacted a penalty for Criminal/Illegal conduct - in the amount of $160 million.

        The CFTC has exacted a penalty of $200 million.

        Remember these are corporations not people but the DOJ may prosecute executives in the future under criminal law.

        Nothing is "in the way" except their will to do so.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site