Prison would have been a country club.

The fines should have been sufficient to pay back the victims of their crimes, and to keep their heirs from inheriting their illgotten gains. As it stands now, the perps have entered into the privileged class and their heirs will inherit that privilege.

Jail time because ... that's what happens to criminals.

This failure to prosecute is a big loser for the Obama/Holder team, and I say that as one who voted twice for Obama.

Yay Yay~ Obama and Holder suck! Got it, so noted, nothing they have done is given an ounce of credit and it never will. All this from posters that say they voted for him twice.

I actually did vote for Obama twice. I also voted for Clinton twice. Voted for Carter and Dukakis too. I vote straight democratic and rarely miss an election from school board on up.

So you disagree with big time crooks doing some time? Have you protested the US incarceration rate when it comes to jailing everyone but the banksters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

Obama governs like a moderate republican. He's done some things I like, and some things I don't, but it's important to recognize that his failure (and Holder's) to prosecute the banksters is one of his biggest failures.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/08/the-fbis-2010-mortgage-fraud-report-reveals-why-the-banksters-love-holder.html

It is fine to complain about democrats who do not give Obama credit for his achievements, but it is unwise not to recognize that his big failures are going to haunt democrats well into the future.

friendly judge, then wrote the rest off. they didn't get hurt at all. Firing squads I think are more useful here.

Indeed, prison would have been a country club, literally. But to assert that the money they are paying hurts their damn souls assumes that they have souls. I'd suggest that these "people" have no souls. They are the empty shells of former humans stripped of their humanity and operating as corporate bots; corporate zombies, basically. When law and punishment are inadequate interventions, how does a nation based on rule of law deal with such villains?

they actually made money when they had to pay fines. Their stock prices increased when investors saw this was all that would happen to them. Stock prices increased and the bonuses were bigger for the criminals.

Nothing will change until prison sentences are handed out.

No matter how many people here try and pretend this is justice, it is not.

(Since this was posted in GD and not the BOG, it's fair game.)

no top executive has gone to jail. I will add the thingy, though plenty here are serious about my statement.

As I've said before, my experience informs me that jail is not an effective dis-incentive to the conduct of the bankers. I have run into literally 100s of convicted felons who all indicate that prison was just the price of doing business ... the only way to stop the misconduct is to take the profit (to the company and to the individual) out of the misconduct.

Further, my experience working with victims of crime informs me that the imprisoning a criminal, while maybe satisfying a need (of the victim and of society) for vengeance/punishment, it does little to nothing to benefit the victim.

We, as a society, must get past the idea that vengeance is at all related to justice.

Nice try.

used to be worth a lot more, but he just paid $45 million in restitution to victims and it's estimated he paid his legal team $23 million. So I guess not a billionaire, but he had a few bucks. Other sources estimate his current net worth at $2 million.

The .01% of the 1% that caused the 2008 economic meltdown. Why does a person that breaks into a house and ruins a single families life go to prison, but a multi-billionaire that owns a huge company ruins hundreds of thousands of families lives...gets to stay out of prison?

Sends a very clear message to the working class imo.

I know no Billionaires is prison ... I do, however, know more than a few criminals that have/had/got (all told) 100s of millions of dollars through their scams. All of them (post-conviction) admit that prison was a possibility ... Few, if any, indicate that the risk of prison would have stopped them from engaging in the conduct that got them in prison.

ETA: But I know/have met 100s of folks that committed economic crimes, knowing that prison was a very real possibility ... AND, each one pf them committed the crime.

and leave them with nothing and no freedom, is about the worst punishment available. Since it has never happened to the .01% or the 1%, we will never know if it is a deterrent or not.

taking everything beyond what would amount to a minimum/living wage from the criminal (and their immediate family), but balk at having to pay for their incarceration.

The elites rip off millions of people for billions of dollars and even after they go to prison, people are still paying for their well being. If companies are people, there should be some way to lock them up too.

to take every penny the convicted executive (and immediate family members) has beyond a minimum/living wage ... and community service until every dime of their theft has be repaid.

There is always trash to pick up on the side of the road and always a need for someone to do it.

I was/am not thinking picking up trash, or other manual/menial labor. The fact is, each of these executives have skill sets that can benefit society. For example, they could be required to serve as CFO for an anti-poverty (or other social service) group.

If they can prove to be good workers on the side of the road, then maybe some positive reinforcement might be called for. Or they could pick up trash in a stadium after a football game for a few seasons. Maybe looking at the skybox they once sat in, will cause some self reflection.

Fines that are twice the total amount earned by the criminal as a result of the criminal activity, not those that are more like 5% to 10% of what they stole. When your penalty for stealing is to pay back LESS than you stole, you're not actually being punished, you're being incentivized to keep stealing. As far as the individual bankers go, I suppose that would mean twice their salary and bonuses and perks during the time frame over which they took part in the criminal activities. Got paid 10 mill to oversee fraud? Your personal fine should be 20 mill.

No prison for bankers, no trial for Anwar Al-Awlaki (and his 16-year old son.)

"Justice"= Blood ... even if that blood does nothing for the victims.

And the money they are paying hurts them a hell of a lot more.

that would force DOJ to make the details of those fines public?

I think we all know why.

O Diary.. and, thought.. if that's posted on DU.. there will be those who don't appreciate a damn thing.. they'll only whine about what didn't happen. And, throw cheap pot shots.

From your link..

“It shows the fruits of the Justice Department’s tireless work in enforcing federal laws,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement."

Gracias President Obama and AG Holder!

Mahalo she~

Wake me up when the fines are actually larger than the profits made as a result of the fraud committed.

Thanks for the laugh!

Fines! Stuff happening! Don't you know that sending the ownership society to prison, never solved anything! Okay, so it has never happened before in recorded history. But if it did, America would fall apart!

And it should not only be severely punished as far as the banks are concerned.

Any pharmaceutical company which sells dangerous drugs without presenting
the side effects should be closed.

Yeah, I can see what is called justice here. Jail for a pot smoker, and a ridiculously
small fine for the banksters and corporations.

illustrates the two-plus tier criminal justice system like no other.

That's pretty punishing stuff to those in jail on drug offenses, and those that never made it there because of a love for cigars.

Perhaps there is more context someone can inform me of. First statement:

Lanny Breuer, former head of Justice Department Criminal Division, to PBS Frontline about not prosecuting banksters:

"But in those cases where we can’t bring a criminal case — and federal criminal cases are hard to bring — I have to prove that you had the specific intent to defraud. I have to prove that the counterparty, the other side of the transaction, relied on your misrepresentation. If we cannot establish that, then we can’t bring a criminal case."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/business-economy-financial-crisis/untouchables/lanny-breuer-financial-fraud-has-not-gone-unpunished/

But as Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York explains:

"But there is a more fundamental problem with the above-quoted statement from the former head of the Criminal Division, which is that it totally misstates the law. In actuality, in a criminal fraud case the government is never required to prove—ever—that one party to a transaction relied on the word of another. "
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/

Second statement:

Lanny Breuer at 50:10: (Before I bring a criminal case) "But in any given case, I think I, and prosecutors around the country being responsible, _should_ speak to regulators, _should_ speak to experts..." (lest criminal prosecution unleash the Too Big To Fail Kraken).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/

Has anyone ever identified these "regulators" and "experts"?

because they actually did do something. If anything they will be remembered as bringing more fines and penalties to the 1% than any other administration.

I won't even look that up. I'd bet good money on it.

not that they will get any credit for it!

POTUS in contemporary history.

Historians will make sure he gets his fair due, long after we are gone and cannot influence their words. History like facts have a liberal slant. We just live in a time that is controlled by avarice. I shall remain hopeful that the future will be better for our children and society finally equitable to one and all.

I want a better future for the children, I have none of my own, yet nieces and nephews then great nieces and nephews that I would die for. I love them all.

Yes, he will indeed go down in history as phenomenal man, that ruled with grace and dignity. He has worked for the betterment of us all. Not realized yet, yet he has.

You are too kind to me, the feeling is mutual. I understand your urgency and need for people to realize we got a great one for 8 years. Maybe the greatest in our lifetimes.

I had my family with me yesterday, 3 generations, we were all their to say good bye to my dad. We are not a big family, yet we were there.

To kind to you? No. I luv ya.

We know what he has done and what he has tried to do. Yes the best in our lifetime.

Are the headlines in some alternate universe where they have a liberal mainstream media.

Sid

While $24.7 billion sounds like a LOT of money, it's not -- at least, to the likes of these big financial institutions $24.7 billion is not much.

-- Citigroup's revenue last quarter was $76 billion

-- At the end of 2013, JPMorgan Chase reported assets of $2.44 TRILLION, liabilities of $2.22 TRILLION, for a net asset value of $220 BILLION.

This article describes how misleading it is to deal in numbers up in the billions.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12412-did-jpmorgan-chase-really-take-a-ten-billion-dollar-hit-for-uncle-sam

If fines are applied it needs to be amounts that would actually hurt them. Sting them for awhile so they remember. More oversight and price and fee freezes to make sure the money they have to pay will not be passed on so they get by scott free. They like paying the fines because it is actually cheaper than the profit they made while breaking the regulations. The average person thinks it is large amount when in fact to these companies it is chump change. Better solution is the fines that hurt them and the CEOs and boards go to jail without golden parachutes and not able to hold such positions again. Background and clearance checks which they want all of us to have will disqualify them forever.

You don't achieve deterrence when your fines are less than the amounts gained through criminal acts. Then it's simply put down to 'the costs of doing business'. As we saw in another post, about testimony that Sherrod Brown elicited, the administration's actual policy has been 'Too Big To Jail', since they worried that actually seriously punishing anyone would 'hurt the industry', and thus be yet another damper on the 'recovery' for the 1%.

To say this is actually 'Making Sure Fraud Gets Punished' is ludicrous. It would be like me robbing a bank, and my 'punishment' be having to pay back 5% or so of what I stole, without having to even admit I robbed the bank, or anything 'go on my record'.

Those sophisticated, wily, unscrupulous poor people took advantage of of the financial elite's naivete, lured them into making unsafe loans that the deadbeats never intended to repay, and that's what caused the meltdown of our banking system.

I'm sure I heard that explanation somewhere. Was is from Republicans? Fox News? Bank executives? People who read only Ayn Rand books and think John Galt is a real person? Somebody said it.

an sardonic ONION article until I read the content and the Orwellian whitewashing of reality, the truth and history.