Fines Alone Won’t Deter Corporate Crime MORE ACCOUNTABILITY, PLEASE. PHOTOGRAPHER: JONATHAN ERNST/BLOOMBERG NOV 14, 2016 9:46 AM EST How should you punish companies that break the law? Granted, it's a difficult question -- but U.S. prosecutors need a better answer. When the U.S. Justice Department said it wanted $14 billion from Deutsche Bank AG for mortgage-related transgressions -- an amount that has threatened to do grievous harm to one of the world's largest financial institutions, deprive people around the world of important financial services, and cost thousands of jobs -- markets tumbled and German politicians cried foul. Some central bankers are worried that fines amounting to more than $175 billion since 2010 for financial institutions alone could be holding back an already weak global economy. Going easy, though, can't be the answer. Like every association under the sun, corporate entities are not immune to bad behavior. Over the past decade or so, banks and other companies have broken the law -- laundering hundreds of millions of dollars for drug cartels, helping dictators evade sanctions and lying for profit to customers, investors and the government. Such acts need to be deterred, but if possible in ways that don't cause collateral economic harm. Greater clarity about the consequences of law-breaking would help. U.S. prosecutors have the tools for this, but make poor use of them. In setting penalties, they can refer to detailed sentencing guidelines designed to ensure consistency. They can offer discounts to encourage cooperation and reform. They can appoint independent monitors to ensure that companies pay restitution and change the systems that let the misbehavior happen. In all these respects, they're erratic. Prosecutors typically don’t explain how they’ve calculated their fines. In cases where a monitor is appointed, they actively resist public reporting. This obscurity can incline them to choose a quick, headline-generating penalty instead of pursuing individuals or following through on reforms, which is harder. It can facilitate shakedowns. And it lets executives pass the consequences of their misdeeds too easily along to shareholders. More transparency is part of the answer. If companies could see how much violators saved by cooperating, they and their boards would be more likely to report misconduct. If the information they supplied helped prosecutors investigate and charge individuals, the need to punish shareholders with fines would be reduced. If reform efforts were openly and independently monitored, companies would have a stronger incentive to make them work. Finally, in cases that have multinational impact, states need to recognize that this is a job for federal authorities, in coordination with their overseas counterparts. Far too often, fines actually compound the damage done by corporate misbehavior, giving the impression that penalties are like parking tickets for delivery trucks, just another cost of doing business. U.S. prosecutors need to challenge those ideas with information -- making themselves more accountable in the process. And if they won't do that, Congress should insist. To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-14/fines-alone-won-t-deter-corporate-crime
And even less with all the thieving the Clintons have done. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-did-clintons-become-so-rich
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...orge-bush-makes-millions-but-few-waves-118697 they made millions from speeches, so what? where is the smoking gun here?
Are the money paid for speeches a way to motivate politicians to give these countries weapons, sell weapons or give funds from USA when they would be in positions to do so? Say we sell weapons or nuclear equipment to Egypt who then sells them to Iran, all because Iran gave a million bucks to Egypt to have Clintons or some other politician half million for 30 minute speech luncheon. If you don't think what many were planning on, you have built a underground cave to live in?
Neither Hillary nor Bill made money from these speeches while they were in office, retired presidents don't affect policy making.
They do who Hillary would have been voted in, you think all these governments would be spending huge sums on people who were not going to run for President?
This is the problem with you tube, Breitbart, twitter, and the internet in general. Falsehoods become truths in the minds of many at a push of the 'enter' key. If someone implies that there is something sinister about 'making millions from speeches,' there are millions ready to believe it. And truth is immaterial! The only answer to this that I see is better education. You could argue that we need a more questioning population. The truth is, however, that our species will, with rare exception, accept as true any statement that agrees with or reinforces our preconceptions. We are generally incapable of questioning these statements. We will soon have a president in the United States that used our natural inclinations to get himself elected, whether he realized it or not. We can take solace in our observation that a small minority of the population is capable of overcoming their instinctive nature through mental process. The nature of mankind is miraculous in this respect, and so far as we know Homo sapiens are the only animals capable of both recognizing and controlling, albeit to a lesser extent, their natural instincts.
I hope it is only a small minority of people so naive they can't see the connection between the millions for speeches and something sinister (providing you are concerned with any pay to play.)