If the DoJ charges the company, they can get a settlement and a favorable headline (although obviously not from Joe). Current management is willing to settle -- they don't feel personally culpable, and the fine isn't paid with their money.
BUT -- if you seek jail terms for the old management, you won't get a settlement. You'll get a no ho…
If the DoJ charges the company, they can get a settlement and a favorable headline (although obviously not from Joe). Current management is willing to settle -- they don't feel personally culpable, and the fine isn't paid with their money.
BUT -- if you seek jail terms for the old management, you won't get a settlement. You'll get a no holds barred fight from well-resourced defendants who don't want to go to jail. And can you really prove culpability beyond a reasonable doubt? The DoJ took the easier path.
Mutatis mutandis, the same argument came up after the 2008 financial crisis, and I think the same explanation applied then.
I've found this a very hard issue to get clear in my mind, but you've nailed from the pragmatist's angle (which happens to be mine). Without proper care, you will get a 'lawyer's picnic' for no public benefit. Who would benefit from that? (Rhetorical question- we know who would benefit).
If the DoJ charges the company, they can get a settlement and a favorable headline (although obviously not from Joe). Current management is willing to settle -- they don't feel personally culpable, and the fine isn't paid with their money.
BUT -- if you seek jail terms for the old management, you won't get a settlement. You'll get a no holds barred fight from well-resourced defendants who don't want to go to jail. And can you really prove culpability beyond a reasonable doubt? The DoJ took the easier path.
Mutatis mutandis, the same argument came up after the 2008 financial crisis, and I think the same explanation applied then.
I've found this a very hard issue to get clear in my mind, but you've nailed from the pragmatist's angle (which happens to be mine). Without proper care, you will get a 'lawyer's picnic' for no public benefit. Who would benefit from that? (Rhetorical question- we know who would benefit).