by Jeff Nielson, Sprott Money:
The most amazing thing about the Justice Department’s new guidelines on prosecution of corporate crime is that the DOJ is effectively acknowledging there was a big problem with how it did things before.
Yes. As these criminalized institutions now perpetrate financial mega-crimes measured (literally) in the$trillions, we have the so-called Justice Department claiming it has been too hard on this financial crime syndicate. Yes. Presumably if the DOJ hadn’t taken its previous, supposed “tough love” approach to these financial criminals, they would now already be perpetrating multi-QUADRILLION dollar crimes. And the U.S. government certainly won’t stand in the way of “progress”.
Supposedly, giving these fraud-factories microscopic fines as their sole punishment was being too harsh – when it comes to enforcing the law. Let me reiterate; we have the U.S. Department of Justice effectively implying that even its previous, token enforcement of laws against financial crimes was impeding the (crimes of the) financial sector. In the United States of Crime, any time there is a conflict between “law” (the Rule of Law) and “profit” (the proceeds of crime), the U.S. Department of Justice sides with profit — i.e. the criminals.
What the Big Banks really “need”, according to the DOJ, is absolute immunity. It’s like the grandparents of a spoiled brat. No matter how horrific the deed perpetrated by the brat, the grandparents never do anything more than muss-up his hair a bit, and then say “run along, you little Scamp, and don’t do this, again.”
Is there any chance that the spoiled brat would ever reform his intolerable behavior? Of course not. Is there any possibility that telling these fraud-factories, in absolutely explicit terms that they will never be prosecuted will actually “deter crime”? No, of course not.
Yet this is precisely what the liars in the U.S. government (and the mouthpieces of Bloomberg) expect us to believe:
“One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrate the wrong-doing,” the memo reads. This “deters future illegal activity, it incentivizes change in future corporate behavior, it ensures that the proper parties are held responsible for their actions, and it promotes the public’s confidence in our justice system.”[emphasis mine]
Let’s dissect this utter perversion of logic and justice, on a phrase-by-phrase basis.
One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrate the wrong-doing…
Don’t punish the Boss who gave the order; punish the Lackey who followed the order. Even in the complete travesty of justice which the U.S. calls its “War on Drugs”; the Department of Justice does not subscribe to such warped logic. It supposedly focuses its quasi-military crusade on the “drug cartels” rather than on the lowly street-pushers.
Yet when we are dealing with Big Banks instead of drug cartels, a crime syndicate whose financial felonies are literally a hundred times larger than those of the drug cartels, we’re now told that the best way to “combat corporate misconduct” is to publicly proclaim to those corporations (Big Banks) that they have complete immunity from any/all prosecution.
The despicable irony, and the reason why this is such an apt metaphor is that while the U.S. government still pretends to be fighting a War on Drugs, it has been giving U.S. Big Banks a free pass to serially launder trillions of dollars for the same drug cartels the U.S. government claims it is fighting to eliminate.
This deters future illegal activity…
No, it encourages more organized/systemic crime. Knowing that they will never be prosecuted; the Big Banks can plan their future crimes with even more confidence/certainty/reckless abandon.
…it incentivizes changes in future corporate behavior
Yes. Knowing they will never, ever be prosecuted; U.S. Big Banks can plan even more crimes, and even larger crimes. The Crime Syndicate has been “incentivized” to get much, much larger.
…it ensures that the proper parties are held responsible for their actions
Really? How does punishing individuals for the crimes of corporations ensure that the “proper parties” are being held responsible? To “combat corporate misconduct”, and punish the “proper parties”, this directly and necessarily implies that you punish corporations for the crimes of corporations – not individuals.
If a farmer has a problem with wolves killing his cattle, will he “deter future activity”, “incentivize change” (with the wolves), and “ensure that the proper parties are held responsible” if he goes out and shoots a few mountain lions? Of course not. It will simply make the wolves glad and smug that they are not lions.
…it promotes the public’s confidence in our justice system.
Sure it does.
Note that the greatest absurdity/perversion of truth in these supposed “new guidelines” is the pretense that there is anything new about giving U.S. Big Banks a virtual free pass for their crimes, no matter how large the crime, no matter how many times the same Big Banks commit the same crimes. Former U.S. Attorney General (i.e. Chief Crime Pimp) Eric Holder had already previously proclaimed that he would never prosecute U.S. Big Banks. And he didn’t.
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.