> bank CEOs specifically in charge of the operations that committed the crime

The article advocates prosecutors charging bankers even though they “might have lost those cases, but at least it would have struck some fear in the hearts of people.” If you lose the case, there was no crime. Charging people with unwinnable cases is bad.

They "might have" is the critical phrase. Not they "would have" the author is arguing that the prosecutors were overly cautious, not that they should handcuff random CEOs

> author is arguing that the prosecutors were overly cautious, not that they should handcuff random CEOs

OP is saying Enrich (the guy being interviewed) went too far when saying about cases that would be lost: “but at least it would have struck some fear in the hearts of people.” I agree with the point about prosecutorial conservatism. But part of the conservatism is a product of proper restraint. Drug crime prosecutors show the opposite end of the spectrum; our criminal justice system aspires to a default of innocence for a reason.

I think where disagree is that you are framing it as cases that would be lost, where as I am interpreting as talking about cases that may have been lost. The difficulty is that that "might" can be interpreted in different ways here. Thinking about it, I can see why your interpretation is reasonable. I think mine is a reasonable interpretation too, though.

your interpretation = "we wouldn't have won but we would have scared them"

my interpretation "we may not have won every case but the very fact that cases were prosecuted would have been valuable"