Since when does the SEC prosecute companies? Besides, isn't their liability close to 0 in civil cases already?

NewportBarGuy: [i39.tinypic.com image 400x300]

HERO

I didn't know what the man looked like and I never thought to GIS him. He's older than I thought.

iron_city_ap: Since when does the SEC prosecute companies? Besides, isn't their liability close to 0 in civil cases already?

The SEC doesn't prosecute. It sues (civil suit) companies on various regulatory violation charges on behalf of the USG. This new regulation says essentially that companies cannot settle without admitting liability with the SEC if it has also been convicted by a USG arm that can prosecute i.e. the DoJ.

I'll believe it when I see it.

The general rule of thumb is that corporations violate the law as much as they want and the laws are not enforced.

If someone finally makes a big enough stink about it, then the government 'writes a new law' (translated: makes them pay a fine of 5-10% of what they stole and gives them immunity for anything similar they've done in the past and will do in the future).


Anytime you hear about some 'big new enforcement law' being enacted, what that really is is a blanket immunity for their crimes in return for a small fee. The small fee being considered a cost of doing business.

And then they get back to wholesale breaking laws.

That's one of the major drawbacks to a political system that has legalized bribery.

Typically, civil and criminal cases are entirely different. You can admit to one without necessarily admitting to the other because the standards and rules are different in each. Sort of like OJ was found not guilty of murder (a criminal case), but found guilty in the wrong death trail (a civil case).

In the past, a person or company could admit to a criminal violation and pay the fine and still deny they were guilty in the related civil case. All this does is means no one will ever plead guilty in the criminal case. As a result, the government will now have to spend millions of dollars and years in court actually trying the cases, and potentially losing a few, that they used to get easy guilty pleas or settlements in.

we admit to not deny the admission of non-denial.

Goodfella: I'll believe it when I see it.

The general rule of thumb is that corporations violate the law as much as they want and the laws are not enforced.

If someone finally makes a big enough stink about it, then the government 'writes a new law' (translated: makes them pay a fine of 5-10% of what they stole and gives them immunity for anything similar they've done in the past and will do in the future).


Anytime you hear about some 'big new enforcement law' being enacted, what that really is is a blanket immunity for their crimes in return for a small fee. The small fee being considered a cost of doing business.

And then they get back to wholesale breaking laws.

That's one of the major drawbacks to a political system that has legalized bribery.

This

Goodfella: I'll believe it when I see it.

I will neither admit nor deny that I agree with you

In reality...if you settle...it itself is a de facto admission of guilt.

The bigger problem with this issue is that the media, especially the Business Socialist media....never will report such settlements as "admission of guilt"

Whether it's a corporation or an individual, why allow someone to neither admit or deny an accusation to start with? You either did it or you didn't do it, plain and simple.

So now, they'll all be innocent? As the driven snow? Just boot strappy?

UCFRoadWarrior: In reality...if you settle...it itself is a de facto admission of guilt.

The bigger problem with this issue is that the media, especially the Business Socialist media....never will report such settlements as "admission of guilt"

The really funny thing is that if there is no official admission or proof of guilt, just a settlement, and a media outlet does what you're describing...BAM, that's a lawsuit.

Justice, in America.

FTFA: "...the agency would continue to use the "neither admit nor deny" settlement process when the agency alone reached a deal with a company in a case of civil securities law violations. Those types of cases make up a large majority of S.E.C. settlements."

Anybody else just a little unimpressed?

We should never make corporations follow the law because JOB CREATION.

WHO-DEY! 2 hours to kickoff and I can't sit still. WHO-DEY!

WHO-DEY!

Goodfella: I'll believe it when I see it.

The general rule of thumb is that corporations violate the law as much as they want and the laws are not enforced.

If someone finally makes a big enough stink about it, then the government 'writes a new law' (translated: makes them pay a fine of 5-10% of what they stole and gives them immunity for anything similar they've done in the past and will do in the future).


Anytime you hear about some 'big new enforcement law' being enacted, what that really is is a blanket immunity for their crimes in return for a small fee. The small fee being considered a cost of doing business.

And then they get back to wholesale breaking laws.

That's one of the major drawbacks to a political system that has legalized bribery.

As much as they want? No. They push the limits of law-breaking now. If those limits weren't there, it would be even worse.

GaryPDX: Explain it to me like I'm 6 years old.

So, like every other time?

Goodfella: The general rule of thumb is that corporations violate the law as much as they want and the laws are not enforced.

Depends on the company. I work for a small electronics parts manufacturer, and the company very strictly complies with all federal and state regulations because if we did something a wee bit illegal the government would be on us like a ton of bricks. GE could probably get away with murder.

Not coincidentally, we're like a zit on a whale's back compared to GE. The lobbying budgets are also significantly different, to put it mildly.

The S.E.C. has defended the practice of allowing companies to avoid admitting or denying charges, saying that by settling with companies, it saves the commission the far greater expense - and potential risk - of fighting them in court. the chances of S.E.C employees involved in the investigation getting a high paying job with the company once the investigation is over.

Robert Khuzami, the director of enforcement at the S.E.C., said the agency would continue to use the "neither admit nor deny" settlement process when the agency alone reached a deal with a company in a case of civil securities law violations. Those types of cases make up a large majority of S.E.C. settlements.

So in reality, they are changing jack and shiat.

In the vast majority of cases before the SEC, they will continue to allow firms to "neither admit nor deny" guilt when they settle with a slap on the wrist fine that also just so happens to absolve them from the possibility of criminal charges.

Here's what the change boils down to: In the infinitesimally small number of cases where the Department of Justice actually prosecutes wealthy insiders who are then found guilty in a court of law, the guilty party can no longer take the "neither admit nor deny" guilt path if civil charges are later filed by the SEC for the same offense, since they have already been found guilty of that offense by a criminal court.