September 15, 2017
Deputy AG Rosenstein hints at possible changes to federal corporate-crime prosecution policies
As reported in this Politico piece, the "Justice Department's No. 2 official indicated Thursday that the federal government's policy on prosecuting corporate crime is under review and he suggested that changes to the department's stance on the issue are coming." Here is more:
"It’s under review and I anticipate that there may be some change to the policy on corporate prosecutions," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Thursday during a question-and-answer session following a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "I don’t have any announcement about that today, but I do anticipate that we may in the near future make an announcement about what changes we’re going to make to corporate fraud principles."
The department's current policy, announced by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in September 2015, aimed to increase prosecutions of individuals responsible for criminal acts committed during work for corporations. The so-called Yates memo was seen in part as a reaction to criticism of the anemic number of prosecutions of individuals on Wall Street or at big banks for crimes related to the economic meltdown in 2008.
Rosenstein did not indicate what portions of the Yates memo are likely to be overhauled or halted. He also said that he favors prosecutions of individuals in appropriate cases. "Corporations, of course, don’t go to prison. They do pay a fine," Rosenstein said. "The issue is can you effectively deter corporate crime by prosecuting corporations or do you in some circumstances need to prosecute individuals. I think you do."
DAG Rosenstein also talked a bit about possible changes to DOJ policies on marijuana enforcement, and I cover those comments here over at Marijuana Law, Policy and Reform.
September 15, 2017 at 10:39 AM | Permalink
Thses guys should be prosecuted. How about the Equafax escapade. The ceo sell stick just before they get hacked. Just a little too handy.
Posted by: MidWestGuy | Sep 16, 2017 5:52:16 PM
The very troubling thing to me about most white collar/corporate criminal prosecutions is a) the very blatant identification of the sentencing judge with the defendant and b) their attainments and privilege ("contributions to society") work almost entirely in their favor, when it seems to me that those really ought to be negatives in their PSR and sentencing (from those to whom much is given, must is expected).
Also true of political criminals.
Posted by: Fat Bastard | Sep 16, 2017 8:14:42 PM
Fat B, pretty much nailed it. Good post.
Posted by: MidWestGuy | Sep 16, 2017 10:30:36 PM
Federal thugs, Ivy law school grads, bully banks into giving mortgages to irresponsible ghetto people, to "end redlining." If the banks do not, there will be problems with their federal charters.
Underwriters seeking to decline the loans, are told, sign or lose your job, by the intimidated banks. Banks comply, and charge high interest rates to reflect the riskiness of the loans. Being intelligent, they bundle these high interest toxic loans, and sell the bundles to sophisticated investors and funds. So, the people making 4% on their funds demand to know of their managers, how come those other people are making 7%. The demand for weak loan packages spreads. The ghetto people naturally cannot make payments. The entire scheme falls down, and we have the depression of 2008.
Now, the same Ivy indoctrinated federal thugs are demanding bankers go to jail for failing to adequately disclose the risk of the loan bundles.
I believe that white collar crime causing more damage than the value of a human life, around $6 million, should get the death penalty or rather the Italian death penalty (suicide or murder in prison).
In this scenario, who should get the Italian death penalty, the federal lawyer thugs or the bankers?
Posted by: David Behar | Sep 17, 2017 12:28:48 PM
Fat. Say, you are not full of wind. Say, all productive people are not totally crushed by the vile lawyer traitor profession. Say, you are not a denying, left wing, asshole.
Your post makes an excellent argument. Replace all judges by algorithms, written by a legislature. Ethnicity, background, prior activities would not be included as factors. Everyone would be treated equally, in accordance with two constitutional Amendments.
I hope you support mandatory sentencing guidelines. They are an intermediate measure until the self evident hits the stupidest group of people in our country, stupider than Life Skills students, learning to eat food with a spoon.
Posted by: David Behar | Sep 17, 2017 9:17:44 PM