One Rule for the Banks another for everyone else.

[Sliver]

IT WAS ALL THEM (but they also provide the ability for other people to do good) is hardly a contentious point.

At least try, Sliver.

Try ? Try what ? Doing a good thing doesn't negate the fact you did bad. You should still be accountable for the bad. Just concede the point and move on.

 

[Xordium]

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.

And yet someone who causes a road accident that causes several deaths and is often charged with death by dangerous driving and manslaughter.

They also fund organisations who help people.

Oh, guess we'll let them off then silly me!

 

[dowie]

You might get manslaughter, you might not - assuming it was deaths caused by a driver simply being careless then you're looking at a short sentence and/or a fine. Whereas multiple murders could lead to a full life term.

Similarly these banks have been fined and the guy who actively facilitated drugs trafficking gets a lengthy sentence.

I'm really not seeing the point you're trying to make? If you're concerned about bankers escaping punishment then a compliance oversight probably isn't the best example. Look at the lack of charges for the FX or Libor rigging - relatively few facing justice there - yet the independent trader accused of causing the flash crash is facing extradition to the US and a very lengthy sentence.

 

[sports_brah]

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.

Even i have to say that regulation should exist. Especially in a globalised world where ******** in one jurisdiction doesnt ruin you or even both a large company.

regulation is strenuous and is the bane of my life but it should be there.

 

[Xordium]

I'm really not seeing the point you're trying to make?

It should be blatantly obvious - a small number of financial employees have been doing some very naughty stuff and don't seem to actually have any personal consequences. Some may say that doesn't sound entirely "correct" and suggests as per the title "one rule for the banks another for everyone else". Although I am totally targeting the banks here they are just an overt part of a larger group that seem to beyond the law, eg Blair etc. I know this has existed forever but it would be good if justice could be even handed.

regulation is strenuous and is the bane of my life but it should be there.

Regulation in any sphere is a pita but it is there for a reason. When the financial sector has built itself up into entities that require and have required the public to save them due to our reliance on them then there has to be a regulation as part of that.

Do you think that there would be acceptance of a sort of code of conduct type mechanism that moves the burden more onto individual employees to assess things themselves. Therefore, when future events happen the institutions involved could quite easily say their employees acted against protocols and therefore are offered no vicarious liability. I think there is a public trust issue here and if the banks were seen to actually challenge rogue elements and support actions against the few rogue members then it would go a long way to aiding a restoration in public trust.

 

[dowie]

It should be blatantly obvious - a small number of financial employees have been doing some very naughty stuff and don't seem to actually have any personal consequences. Some may say that doesn't sound entirely "correct" and suggests as per the title "one rule for the banks another for everyone else".

The example you've given doesn't show them doing any 'very naughty stuff' it just shows them screwing up... Sometimes hospital staff screw up too - doctors/nurses make mistakes and patients die. Would comparing a nurse who has made a mistake with a murderer be reasonable - then perhaps asking why the murderer gets a life term and the nurse just lost her job? Maybe the Hospital faces some sanction...

I've given you much better examples - LIBOR rigging and FX rigging scandals if you want to see areas where they've escaped prosecution for actively breaking the law. But those don't have much comparison to the silk road guy.

 

[George Hincapie]

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?

Why did you even bother to post this? Don't you understand the difference between individual and corporate liability when it comes to criminal offences?

 

[Surfer]

Why did you even bother to post this? Don't you understand the difference between individual and corporate liability when it comes to criminal offences?

this.

If you want to engage in "criminality" without breaking the law... hire a lawyer and an accountant..setup a business. Have plenty of layers between you and the actual action that could compromise you.

 

[dowie]

One rule for Hospitals another for everyone else:

Mr McGrillen has been sentenced to life imprisonment after admitting murdering a man and woman in Belfast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32883527

Basildon Hospital in Essex admitted failings under the Health and Safety at Work Act leading to the deaths of two patients.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-23961487

Both admitted wrongdoing, both actions performed by people, both actions facilitating deaths. 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?


Oh wait - there was clear intent in one case and regulatory failings in the other... the hospital wasn't actively trying to kill people they just failed in their job, just like HSBC failed to do their job properly.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Oh wait - there was clear intent in one case and regulatory failings in the other... the hospital wasn't actively trying to kill people they just failed in their job, just like HSBC failed to do their job properly.

There was massive failure on the part of the bank and its employees. There is a point when the failure becomes so large that logic dictates that the policy is deliberate.

Banks, in the UK, have got away with it because they contribute a large wedge of tax and since the decimation of industry their contribution places them above the law. Although it should not, in reality it does.

Have you noticed the usual defence(as in the case of the phone hacking), it runs along the usual 'a few bad apples' but like phone hacking as more evidence comes to light it shows massive failure(deliberate policy).
It has all gone quiet on the regulation of the press.

 

[dowie]

There was massive failure on the part of the bank and its employees. There is a point when the failure becomes so large that logic dictates that the policy is deliberate.

no, a failure doesn't logically imply anything about intent

you can say they've been very slack, didn't care as much as they should etc.. but you can say that about say a hospital where deaths occur needlessly

 

[stopper]

nvm

 

[Xordium]

Sometimes hospital staff screw up too - doctors/nurses make mistakes and patients die. Would comparing a nurse who has made a mistake with a murderer be reasonable - then perhaps asking why the murderer gets a life term and the nurse just lost her job? Maybe the Hospital faces some sanction....

In that case if they directly breached protocol they would not be covered by vicarious liability clauses which is why they all have to have professional indemnity and when the acts are deliberate are charged and when they are born of malpractice they are charged and have professional misconduct hearings.

Don't you understand the difference between individual and corporate liability when it comes to criminal offences?

Yes I do actually read the above ... alternatively just be your usual self.

 

[dowie]

And likewise bankers can individually be charged with criminal offences..

And, ref my BBC story, Hospitals can be fined after patient deaths and seemingly no individual held to account.

Again I'm still not seeing the comparison between someone actively trying to facilitate drug dealing with a bank who have been slack in their oversight and allowed drug money to be deposited. It is about as comparable as a hospital being slack with their oversight leading to deaths and someone actually murdering people.