One Rule for the Banks another for everyone else.

Xordium

Xordium

Xordium

Soldato
Joined
8 Apr 2009
Posts
12,702
So Ross Ulbricht was found guilty and has been sentenced to an effective life in prison for creating and maintaining The Silk Road and thereby facilitating the financial transactions associated with illegal narcotics:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/29/silk-road-ross-ulbricht-sentenced

HSBC was found guilty and fined and yet no one person imprisoned for facilitating the financial transactions of not only illegal narcotics but terrorist groups as well:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/17/hsbc-executive-resigns-senate

Both admitted wrongdoing, both actions performed by people, both actions facilitating illegal activities. And yet one gets a severe punitive sentence the other a large fine but no repercussions for those personally found culpable. Hardly seems fair does it?
 
Xordium said:
So Ross Ulbricht was found guilty and has been sentenced to an effective life in prison for creating and maintaining The Silk Road and thereby facilitating the financial transactions associated with illegal narcotics:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/29/silk-road-ross-ulbricht-sentenced

HSBC was found guilty and fined and yet no one person imprisoned for facilitating the financial transactions of not only illegal narcotics but terrorist groups as well:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/17/hsbc-executive-resigns-senate

Both admitted wrongdoing, both actions performed by people, both actions facilitating illegal activities. And yet one gets a severe punitive sentence the other a large fine but no repercussions for those personally found culpable. Hardly seems fair does it?
Click to expand...

It seems appropriate given the far greater detail the people who are not us were given access to before they determined an outcome.

Did you read the Wired piece? It's pretty good.
 
While I agree with your sentiment it is not as simple as saying what Ross Ulbricht had done was the same or similar to what HSBC did. The one case was pinned onto one person with lots of added criminal charges for things specifically tied to him rather than illegal things he facilitated.

The law is good at persecuting people for actions that result in illegal activity but not so good at bringing people within corporations, that facilitate illegal activity, to justice.

The scale and impact of HSBC's laundering operation is much larger and worse than what the Silk Road was doing, but it was also done using legal loop holes that makes it much harder to prosecute. A fine is simpler, shows that authorities recognise the wrong that was done and there is little to no chance that the bank would have fought against a fine. Criminal charges of misconduct that could lead to jail time for executives on the other hand would have been a different story, with HSBC being able to afford the best lawyers that legal battle could have been dragged out and might have resulted in a fine anyway, one that would only have covered legal fees most likely.

It is unfair, I agree. I don't see how it could be made fair given the limitations of our legal system though.
 
The rich and powerful are always best placed to avoid the full force of the law. This has being going on since the beginning of civilised society and I doubt it will ever change much. Sometimes, once in a blue moon, some high flying elite gets banged up, but the status quo seems to be one rule for the rich and another for the plebs.
 
[FnG]magnolia;28103445 said:
It seems appropriate given the far greater detail the people who are not us were given access to before they determined an outcome.

Did you read the Wired piece? It's pretty good.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read that it's a good article. Irrespective of the evidence placed before them do you really think one person deserves their whole life behind bars and other people absolutely no prison time whatsoever?

Noxvayl said:
While I agree with your sentiment it is not as simple as saying what Ross Ulbricht had done was the same or similar to what HSBC did. The one case was pinned onto one person with lots of added criminal charges for things specifically tied to him rather than illegal things he facilitated.

The law is good at persecuting people for actions that result in illegal activity but not so good at bringing people within corporations, that facilitate illegal activity, to justice.

The scale and impact of HSBC's laundering operation is much larger and worse than what the Silk Road was doing, but it was also done using legal loop holes that makes it much harder to prosecute. A fine is simpler, shows that authorities recognise the wrong that was done and there is little to no chance that the bank would have fought against a fine. Criminal charges of misconduct that could lead to jail time for executives on the other hand would have been a different story, with HSBC being able to afford the best lawyers that legal battle could have been dragged out and might have resulted in a fine anyway, one that would only have covered legal fees most likely.

It is unfair, I agree. I don't see how it could be made fair given the limitations of our legal system though.
Click to expand...

I agree there are not equivalent crimes but the polarised opposite actions of the judicial system do give the impression certain types of people can get away with anything.

The action has to come, for example, HSBC. Either they sanctioned the actions of their employees or they did not. If they sanctioned a massive criminal enterprise then the fine and subsequent removal of control hardly appropriate. If they did not sanction the actions of the employees then those employees need to be charged to the same severity.
 
I have never understood how fining 'banks' serves any purpose. Or how the 'banks' seem to be treated as sentient beings because very few prosecutions of employees of these 'banks' have resulted from the many many frauds committed by these 'banks.'
 
I think the key difference is that Ulbricht was silk road, so he could be punished directly. With HSBC, the argument is more around governance failure than the actions of individuals hence the company gets punished.

Ulbricht's utterly laughable defences and general contempt of the courts and the judicial system probably didn't help his case either.
 
Dolph said:
I think the key difference is that Ulbricht was silk road, so he could be punished directly. With HSBC, the argument is more around governance failure than the actions of individuals hence the company gets punished.

Ulbricht's utterly laughable defences and general contempt of the courts and the judicial system probably didn't help his case either.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't although he did show remorse towards the end. However, if an organisation shows an inability to govern the actions of their employees then surely what in effect is slap on the wrist and loosening of the previously tightened regulations is not the answer.

Maybe there should be a written set of stipulations that financial employees have to stick to to remove the onus onto them to determine if their actions are appropriate and correct. That would help unmuddy the waters of vicarious liability and enable to apportion blame.
 
I'm not aware of any of the banks ordering the execution of several people, Ross did, he personally ordered their deaths, paid for their deaths, & believed his orders had been carried out, he was also the sole proprietor of Silk Road, all roads lead directly to that one person, Ross Ulbricht.
 
Kronos said:
I have never understood how fining 'banks' serves any purpose. Or how the 'banks' seem to be treated as sentient beings because very few prosecutions of employees of these 'banks' have resulted from the many many frauds committed by these 'banks.'
Click to expand...

As I have said elsewhere, all you are doing is fining the customers/shareholders.

The situation becomes even more absurd if you consider the prospect of fining a bank that is part state owned! (Or, indeed, any state owned corporation)

The only winners are the Lawyers who get a nice wedge of taxpayers money for overseeing the transfer of tax payers money from one government department to another! :mad:
 
VoG said:
I'm not aware of any of the banks ordering the execution of several people, Ross did, he personally ordered their deaths, paid for their deaths, & believed his orders had been carried out, he was also the sole proprietor of Silk Road, all roads lead directly to that one person, Ross Ulbricht.
Click to expand...

And he got a life sentence for that. However, banks through the actions of their employees have profited from and facilitated terrorist organisations that have actually killed people.
 
Xordium said:
No, they didn't although he did show remorse towards the end. However, if an organisation shows an inability to govern the actions of their employees then surely what in effect is slap on the wrist and loosening of the previously tightened regulations is not the answer.

Maybe there should be a written set of stipulations that financial employees have to stick to to remove the onus onto them to determine if their actions are appropriate and correct. That would help unmuddy the waters of vicarious liability and enable to apportion blame.
Click to expand...

There is a gulf between failing to regulate in line with all regulations, and deliberately and wilfully setting out to ignore and break them though.

Regulations shouldn't exist just because, and they are not self justifying. If they don't work, they should be revised accordingly. If tighter regulations provide no greater protection than looser ones in the real world then the loosed ones must prevail if we are to have an open, honest and free society.
 
VoG said:
I'm not aware of any of the banks ordering the execution of several people, Ross did, he personally ordered their deaths, paid for their deaths, & believed his orders had been carried out.
Click to expand...

Wiki says this:

Ulbricht was indicted on charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics,[32][33] and attempting to have six people killed.[34] Prosecutors alleged that Ulbricht paid $730,000 to others to commit the murders, although none of the murders actually occurred.[34] Ulbricht ultimately was not prosecuted for any of the alleged murders.[35]
Click to expand...

There's a difference between what is alleged and what actually happened.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
There is a gulf between failing to regulate in line with all regulations, and deliberately and wilfully setting out to ignore and break them though.

Regulations shouldn't exist just because, and they are not self justifying. If they don't work, they should be revised accordingly. If tighter regulations provide no greater protection than looser ones in the real world then the loosed ones must prevail if we are to have an open, honest and free society.
Click to expand...

Strange you saying that because you openly said on these forums that Clinton repealing controls was in hindsight a poor move and a large component of the financial crash. So I am presuming the repealing of the same controls in the past year would also be such a poor move.

I can find the quote if you would want but it would take time I'd rather not spend.

I find your notion of an open, honest and free society in this context rather ironical.
 
Xordium said:
And he got a life sentence for that. However, banks through the actions of their employees have profited from and facilitated terrorist organisations that have actually killed people.
Click to expand...

There is a bit of a difference in being slack in their compliance, oversight etc.. and actively facilitating crimes.

It is like comparing someone who caused a road traffic accident leading to several deaths with someone who sets out to murder several people. Yes they can both be said to have killed people but that is about as far as the comparison goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom