Ok, the judiciary does not technically enforce criminal law, but applies and interprets them. But that is a technicality of language which neither refutes nor reinforces the point I was making: this is not an example of criminal law being enforced. This is a case of regulatory law/oversight.

Should regulators hurt some companies and help others, behind closed doors and for unwritten rules?

That's a different kind of question than should "the courts and police enforce criminal law," which the above user I was responding to was confused about.

That is what the point was.

I can see how reasonable minds can agree on what amount of trust they place in the hands of regulators. Clearly, judging by downvotes, a majority HN believes they should have authority to manipulate markets by picking winners and losers based on determinations of good or bad behavior--and all behind closed doors and outside of written rules. I just simply dont agree with that, as most other economists and Bloomberg news clearly does not, either.

Again... you're injecting some sort of belief that they are manipulating markets and picking winners and losers when there is no such evidence of either of those statements being true including none in the article itself. You're stating that that punishing an organization for fraud is manipulating the market. It seems that you're cloaking that odd argument under the 'behind closed doors' and 'outside of written rules' aspect when they are not connected in any way. One has been created out of whole cloth and the other might actually be pretty valid. You're also hand-wavingly saying 'most other economists' don't agree with that organization policing fraud which multiple others have said (and myself) doesn't seem accurate while not providing any evidence that economists believe that. I'm not sure why you're taking this stance honestly as you're not giving any proof or evidence for any of it.

If you are punishing one organization for bad behavior 1) in secret and 2) without expressly breaking any written rules (the article says they broke "unwritten rules") then this is going beyond enforcement of regulatory oversight.

I dont disagree with the end result, I disagree with the method.

Also, you may disagree, but I dont believe you honestly dont understand what I am saying.