I think white collar crime is criminally (pun intended) overlooked. There's a kind of class based discrimination where people glorify white collar criminals (e.g. Wolf of Wall Street) in a way...
I think white collar crime is criminally (pun intended) overlooked. There's a kind of class based discrimination where people glorify white collar criminals (e.g. Wolf of Wall Street) in a way that they don't when it comes to petty crime. I wish more justice advocacy organisations would push not just for less prosecution and harassment of poor and ethnic minority people, but also a kind of "tough on crime" for finance types and corporations. I understand why they don't and they broadly do a great job.
That's really the crux of it, innit? The politician that wins is largely the one that has the most name recognition....which gives incumbents a strong edge. So most elections now boil down to who...
Until the definition of “legal” is no longer controlled by the people or organizations with the deepest pockets, it’s unlikely that real change will come about
That's really the crux of it, innit? The politician that wins is largely the one that has the most name recognition....which gives incumbents a strong edge. So most elections now boil down to who had the better advertising, who presented themselves better on TV, and whom is already a politician.
In this modern age, I don't see any way to properly correct this short of drawing politicians by lot. We'll get some inept governance to be sure, especially in the short term... but at least we'll be able to trace the paths of corruption easier. Is lack of experience less bad than corruption? At this point I think I'd be willing to roll those dice to find out.
And a system like that would incentivize making sure we have everyone properly educated in both logic and ethics...and hopefully empathy as well while I'm dreaming.
I think the experiment (I believe it was in France?) where they brought together a group of random citizens with no experience or education background required, then they all spent a few months...
I think the experiment (I believe it was in France?) where they brought together a group of random citizens with no experience or education background required, then they all spent a few months learning about and debating a topic amongst themselves (I believe it was related to climate change?) and at the end, they came to a consensus and submitted recommendations to the government to implement policy.
If people are too busy with their own lives to learn the depths of any given topic, of course they’re going to make all kinds of snap decisions. But if you genuinely provide the time and opportunity for people to learn, then they can make decisions based on the evidence rather than the deepest pocketed lobbying firms.
I think, as long as we’re paying them politician levels of money, that yeah randomly selecting citizens can potentially lead to great outcomes! I’d love to see more of it!
One (of many) things I don't like about our legal system is that it's not just what's written down that determines whether something is legal or illegal -- it's also case law and precedent. So the...
One (of many) things I don't like about our legal system is that it's not just what's written down that determines whether something is legal or illegal -- it's also case law and precedent. So the whole thing is a bit of a moving target. I think this inherently favors people willing to take risks. I'm pretty cautious by nature, so I have trouble moving into the grey areas, but it seems like this is sometimes required to succeed, or at least, it seems to often succeed and have few consequences.
Aside: I do recognize that written law and precedent are a necessity given the structure of our government (judiciary vs legislature). The ambiguity just bugs me.
At a very philosophical level, this kind of ambiguity is impossible to avoid. In practical terms some jurisdictions (e.g. civil law jurisdictions) do try to reduce the use of precdent (in terms of...
At a very philosophical level, this kind of ambiguity is impossible to avoid.
In practical terms some jurisdictions (e.g. civil law jurisdictions) do try to reduce the use of precdent (in terms of establishing new laws, not interpreting cases). These jurisdictions tend to struggle when it comes to some areas of law (e.g. commercial law, most of which is litigated in either Delaware or England and Wales) because the real world is confusing and moves faster than legislators are able to.
Even civil law jurisdictions rely on precedent to determine how laws should be applied/enforced.
Drawing these fine lines around intention is even trickier when executives rely on expert advisers to help with their decisions. If a lawyer or an accountant tells you that something is legal—even just barely—should you have to go to jail if he’s wrong? Many things that appear greedy or selfish in hindsight are not illegal, and many actual crimes occur when valid business practices edge beyond what the law allows.
I actually do think these cases are a lot more complex than people give them credit for. For example, I know a former compliance officer at a large bank (more than $1 trillion in assets) who...
I actually do think these cases are a lot more complex than people give them credit for.
For example, I know a former compliance officer at a large bank (more than $1 trillion in assets) who reported a series of suspicious transactions involving >$100 million of cash deposits/withdrawals per week. Their bosses at the bank essentially agreed with the regulator to pin this on them. I am pretty confident that they did not do anything wrong here – in fact they chose the correct path. The issue is that if you approach the issue without any of this knowledge it's hard to ascertain who is actually responsible for the money-laundering here.
Working out exactly who knew what is pretty hard. I agree that there should be a requirement for financial services senior staff to actually keep tabs on what happens on their institution, and it should be possible to prosecute them for neglect if something goes wrong. One issue is that even when police are able to put together such cases, prosecutors capable of pursuing such cases are few and far between.
Am I understanding you correctly, your acquaintance was held responsible because they noticed and reported the transactions? I must not be reading that correctly.
Am I understanding you correctly, your acquaintance was held responsible because they noticed and reported the transactions? I must not be reading that correctly.
Essentially the bank decided to try to use them as a fall guy which the regulator was happy to accept. This was in the UAE, so they were not particularly concerned about the money laundering and...
Essentially the bank decided to try to use them as a fall guy which the regulator was happy to accept. This was in the UAE, so they were not particularly concerned about the money laundering and just wanted the compliance issue to vanish.
Because financial services are pretty complex it's often easy to construct a case pointing at the wrong person. This is really bad because it lets of the actual bad actors!
I think white collar crime is criminally (pun intended) overlooked. There's a kind of class based discrimination where people glorify white collar criminals (e.g. Wolf of Wall Street) in a way that they don't when it comes to petty crime. I wish more justice advocacy organisations would push not just for less prosecution and harassment of poor and ethnic minority people, but also a kind of "tough on crime" for finance types and corporations. I understand why they don't and they broadly do a great job.
These charts are worth a look: https://www.tcworkerscenter.org/2018/09/wage-theft-vs-other-forms-of-theft-in-the-u-s/
That's really the crux of it, innit? The politician that wins is largely the one that has the most name recognition....which gives incumbents a strong edge. So most elections now boil down to who had the better advertising, who presented themselves better on TV, and whom is already a politician.
In this modern age, I don't see any way to properly correct this short of drawing politicians by lot. We'll get some inept governance to be sure, especially in the short term... but at least we'll be able to trace the paths of corruption easier. Is lack of experience less bad than corruption? At this point I think I'd be willing to roll those dice to find out.
And a system like that would incentivize making sure we have everyone properly educated in both logic and ethics...and hopefully empathy as well while I'm dreaming.
I think the experiment (I believe it was in France?) where they brought together a group of random citizens with no experience or education background required, then they all spent a few months learning about and debating a topic amongst themselves (I believe it was related to climate change?) and at the end, they came to a consensus and submitted recommendations to the government to implement policy.
If people are too busy with their own lives to learn the depths of any given topic, of course they’re going to make all kinds of snap decisions. But if you genuinely provide the time and opportunity for people to learn, then they can make decisions based on the evidence rather than the deepest pocketed lobbying firms.
I think, as long as we’re paying them politician levels of money, that yeah randomly selecting citizens can potentially lead to great outcomes! I’d love to see more of it!
One (of many) things I don't like about our legal system is that it's not just what's written down that determines whether something is legal or illegal -- it's also case law and precedent. So the whole thing is a bit of a moving target. I think this inherently favors people willing to take risks. I'm pretty cautious by nature, so I have trouble moving into the grey areas, but it seems like this is sometimes required to succeed, or at least, it seems to often succeed and have few consequences.
Aside: I do recognize that written law and precedent are a necessity given the structure of our government (judiciary vs legislature). The ambiguity just bugs me.
At a very philosophical level, this kind of ambiguity is impossible to avoid.
In practical terms some jurisdictions (e.g. civil law jurisdictions) do try to reduce the use of precdent (in terms of establishing new laws, not interpreting cases). These jurisdictions tend to struggle when it comes to some areas of law (e.g. commercial law, most of which is litigated in either Delaware or England and Wales) because the real world is confusing and moves faster than legislators are able to.
Even civil law jurisdictions rely on precedent to determine how laws should be applied/enforced.
Random note: this video is kind of interesting, and shows that all legal systems rely on precedent.
Oh jeez, cry me a river.
I actually do think these cases are a lot more complex than people give them credit for.
For example, I know a former compliance officer at a large bank (more than $1 trillion in assets) who reported a series of suspicious transactions involving >$100 million of cash deposits/withdrawals per week. Their bosses at the bank essentially agreed with the regulator to pin this on them. I am pretty confident that they did not do anything wrong here – in fact they chose the correct path. The issue is that if you approach the issue without any of this knowledge it's hard to ascertain who is actually responsible for the money-laundering here.
Working out exactly who knew what is pretty hard. I agree that there should be a requirement for financial services senior staff to actually keep tabs on what happens on their institution, and it should be possible to prosecute them for neglect if something goes wrong. One issue is that even when police are able to put together such cases, prosecutors capable of pursuing such cases are few and far between.
Am I understanding you correctly, your acquaintance was held responsible because they noticed and reported the transactions? I must not be reading that correctly.
Essentially the bank decided to try to use them as a fall guy which the regulator was happy to accept. This was in the UAE, so they were not particularly concerned about the money laundering and just wanted the compliance issue to vanish.
Because financial services are pretty complex it's often easy to construct a case pointing at the wrong person. This is really bad because it lets of the actual bad actors!