Current Events > your reaction: mandatory minimum prison sentences for financial crimes

(+) Yeah! (+)

DB recently participated in a $10B money laundering scheme. They were caught and fined $600m.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/investing/deutsche-bank-us-fine-russia-money-laundering/index.html

Deutsche Bank said in a statement that it already has the latest U.S. and U.K. penalties covered in reserves it has set aside for legal bills.

This quotation tells you everything you need to know about the impact of fines for financial crimes.

If, instead, the company board--all of it--were sent to jail for the next decade...this wouldn't happen.

Deterrence doesn't work with violent crime because violent crimes are generally either crimes of passion or desperation. Those who commit them have little to lose and rarely consider risks.

With financial crime, extreme over-sentencing of the guilty likely would have a deterrence effect, as the impact of getting caught is planned around and factors in as an operating cost.
---

Mandatory minimums are bullshit already. Don't add more bullshit to the pile.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mandatory minimums are bulls*** already. Don't add more bulls*** to the pile.

I think this is one place where it has value, because deterrence is actually useful as a tool against people who actively plan out their illegal activities with the expectation of being caught.

There is no 'legal payout fund' to cover ten years in prison. When that is the result of deliberate financial wrongdoing, the board's decision is "Let's not do that."

More broadly, I don't really feel that it's possible for draconian criminal policies to oppress those at the top of our society. They don't do anything by mistake.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mandatory minimums are bullshit already. Don't add more bullshit to the pile.

Yeah, but where current examples of this overwhelmingly seem to target poor people, this targets the group of people most likely to pre-meditatively commit the crime. I might actually support this.
---

I'd be happy just seeing them hold individuals responsible, because human beings made those decisions. It's not enough to fine the company. A company is not sentient and isn't capable of committing fraud without actual humans pushing the buttons.
---

I dunno, I'm not an expert, aren't these people held from personal liability due to the existence of a corporate entity? DB was in trouble, not any particular person in it?
---

Balrog0 posted...

I dunno, I'm not an expert, aren't these people held from personal liability due to the existence of a corporate entity? DB was in trouble, not any particular person in it?

correct. i am saying, perhaps we should change that.
---

I think changing that would be sufficient without mandatory minimums, but I could be naive
---

Balrog0 posted...

I think changing that would be sufficient without mandatory minimums, but I could be naive

it'd be a start but the punishment needs to be sufficiently severe that there's no amount of return where the risk is considered acceptable
---

Just fine them. Government gets needed revenue rather than having to spend money housing non violent criminals.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Just fine them. Government gets needed revenue rather than having to spend money housing non violent criminals.

fines are so ineffective that companies plan around them with the assumption they'll be caught
---

Simple solution: Corporate death penalty.
Your company got caught doing some shenanigans? Then, your company is dis-incorporated and its assets liquidated.

Yup, obviously. If you shoot someone you go to jail but if you steal millions then you don't, it's ridiculous. Society as a whole has already decided that human life isn't worth even close to 1 million, so why the discrepancy?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Simple solution: Corporate death penalty.
Your company got caught doing some shenanigans? Then, your company is dis-incorporated and its assets liquidated.

How would that work? Full government seizure of 100% of assets? What is done to the shareholders/bondholders--assets returned to them as best as can, in order of risk level?

It does pose an interesting concept.

If corporations are people the government should be allowed to 'kill' them with 'infinity' fines that can't be dodged via bankruptcy filings.
---

Darkman124 posted...

How would that work? Full government seizure of 100% of assets? What is done to the shareholders/bondholders--assets returned to them as best as can, in order of risk level?

I'd guess payoff of any restitution, then shareholders get the rest. Similar to a chapter-7 bankruptcy, at least mechanically.

They will just leave the country with unbankruptabke fines.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

They will just leave the country with unbankruptabke fines.

the board fleeing the country is part of why i prefer the idea of jail time for those responsible for the decisions
---

Darkman124 posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

They will just leave the country with unbankruptabke fines.

the board fleeing the country is part of why i prefer the idea of jail time for those responsible for the decisions

You expect actual and meaningful change and reform to happen in the boardroom, when a random C-something-O could just be tossed to the wolves?

Questionmarktarius posted...

You expect actual and meaningful change and reform to happen in the boardroom, when a random C-something-O could just be tossed to the wolves?

i was thinking the entire board, really. dual stipulation: the board is uniquely individually responsible for any actions that are federal crimes, and federal crimes incur jail time rather than financial penalties.

companies employ people; i don't relish the idea of destroying 10,000 jobs because five guys got together and plotted to rip off the nation.
---

That is a good way to dissuade qualified professionals from taking board positions.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

That is a good way to dissuade qualified professionals from taking board positions.

anyone dissuaded from a job because "you might go to jail if you deliberately break the law" is not someone i want working that job

that seems like a benefit
---

Darkman124 posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

That is a good way to dissuade qualified professionals from taking board positions.

anyone dissuaded from a job because "you might go to jail if you deliberately break the law" is not someone i want working that job

that seems like a benefit

"You might go to jail if that guy breaks the law" is what you're proposing, though.

If you are going to throw the whole board to the wolves for the actions of one it makes serving a risky proposition.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mandatory minimums are bulls*** already. Don't add more bulls*** to the pile.

I think this is one place where it has value, because deterrence is actually useful as a tool against people who actively plan out their illegal activities with the expectation of being caught.

There is no 'legal payout fund' to cover ten years in prison. When that is the result of deliberate financial wrongdoing, the board's decision is "Let's not do that."

More broadly, I don't really feel that it's possible for draconian criminal policies to oppress those at the top of our society. They don't do anything by mistake.

Well said.
---

Reminds me of this from George Carlin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI

Brilliant lol.

"Damn right!"
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

If you are going to throw the whole board to the wolves for the actions of one it makes serving a risky proposition.

Questionmarktarius posted...

"You might go to jail if that guy breaks the law" is what you're proposing, though.

company boards vote on action together, and it'd be fairly absurd for the board not to be aware of an action taken with deliberate intent to violate the law. but of course a court of law has to prove people are aware, and that should still hold true.

if you're on a board and the vote comes up, voting no and not reporting it in the event of an illegal action passing still would be equivalent to complicity in my book.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

You expect actual and meaningful change and reform to happen in the boardroom, when a random C-something-O could just be tossed to the wolves?

i was thinking the entire board, really. dual stipulation: the board is uniquely individually responsible for any actions that are federal crimes, and federal crimes incur jail time rather than financial penalties.

companies employ people; i don't relish the idea of destroying 10,000 jobs because five guys got together and plotted to rip off the nation.

force those five guys to pay those 10 000 people their regular salaries for a pre-determined amount of time, or until they find new work
---

When do the the poor saps at the bottom not get fucked, though?

Questionmarktarius posted...

When do the the poor saps at the bottom not get fucked, though?

when their bosses bang their wives?

broadly, i do think DB does quality business and i don't want the company purged. i just want the people responsible for their illicit activity to face actual punishment so the rest shape up.
---

Doesn't make sense.

The whole reason to steal money is because you have none.

So what is there for one to pay the fine with ?
---