I'm still getting up to date on what happened here, but corporate malfeasance isn't incompatible with aggressive and even corrupt regulation. In fact my starting place is that both are likely.
What I reject is the claim that the State only steps in and takes action if the party they're investigating has done something wrong. That's absurd.
Since nothing in the comment you are responding to implies, or even has anything to do with, that, I’m not sure, other than love of pure non-sequitur, you would post that.
Kind of precludes alternate motives, like "the regulator is captured by existing interests and is prosecuting the company despite the company's sincere intention to make things better".
This is ridiculous oversimplification. Can you elaborate at all on how the company has "no interest in making things better"? It's an interesting attack on the 'character' of a corporate entity, that's almost impossible to disprove.
Really, its standard corporate spin when accepting a settlement, “We’re super happy to work with regulators to make things better.” When, of course, if the company had any interest in making things better the regulator would never have needed to get involved in the first place.
Obviously, its deceptive, but its not bizarre, its just making PR lemonade out of PR lemons.