Can you cite a source of a US DOJ head saying the actual quote you claim they said .

I work in the industry and follow things like this and I haven't heard the US government saying they would like to charge JPM but they can't due to destabilizing the US financial system.

I'll even let you go back 5 years to find such a quote!! I don't think i've heard of this happening.

It's called the (Eric) Holder doctrine:

> That sentiment was echoed as late as 2012 by Lanny Breuer, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, who said in a speech at the New York City Bar Association that he felt it was his duty to consider the health of the company, the industry, and the markets in deciding whether or not to file charges.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wal...

Here is the 2012 speech from Lanny Breuer [1].

And here is the 1999 memo from (then Deputy Attorney General) Eric Holder [2 PDF].

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-genera...

[2] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/l...

> I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it.

Please don't include stuff like this in your comments. It degrades HN, and does not "assume good faith", as the HN guidelines ask you to do (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). The commenter could be uninformed, or have genuinely thought that their quote backed up their position (and just been wrong).

Saying that you're "being trolled by an anonymous account" is bad form and definitely not the kind of stuff that I want to see on HN.

> That in no way backs up your claim. 1) That was 10 years ago

What does "ten years ago" have to do with it? The original claim said nothing about when it was said; you're the only one who brought that up.

It seems odd that you initially 'graciously' let the OP "go back 5 years" to back up their claim, and then immediately retorted "that was 10 years ago. You're trolling me", like you were entirely aware of what they might be talking about.

> . 1) That was 10 years ago

The Holder doctrine, (as explained in the article that was provided as a source) dates from 1999 and is thus over two decades old. This doctrine was referenced in 2012 by the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division.

If you believe this doctrine is no longer followed, it would behoove you to provide evidence of your own that "too big to jail" hasn't been a guiding doctrine for over two decades.

> I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it.

Calling someone a troll never improves any discussion and is inappropriate on HN.

What's stopping them from charging the people responsible? Are the people so irreplaceable that they are effectively JPM?

They are not irreplaceable but it would create the sort of inverse "moral hazard" that might stop these practices, which are apparently what's being protected.

Hard to imagine that the Chief Financial Spreadsheet Monkey is irreplaceable. If you want someone irreplaceable, I'd look at the COBOL programmers.

The revolving door between the financial sector and our government- if they jailed people now then when it's their turn to get rich off of their government connections they might risk jail.

they did charge them: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8013-19

It’s bad for campaign donations and bad for future highly paid job prospects in the financial industry. So politicians and agency workers have strong incentives to not be too tough on banks.

Okay, fine. Then just permanently revoke JPM's license, and the license of any personnel involved, to do commodity trading.

I feel like in those cases, especially with corporations, you can do stuff like partial nationalization or confiscation of the bank then. "Your criminally irresponsible, so we will take over part of it as the more responsible party". It's the corporate equivalent of a criminal punishment, maybe the community service equivalent.

Citation? That seems unlikely. It would be pretty easy to fine them in ten year installments or something to avoid killing them.

Yeah, that's not the job of the judiciary to worry about that.

a (good) source would've been great :)

> Holder’s memo asserted that “collateral consequences” from prosecutions—including corporate instability or collapse—should be taken into account when deciding whether to prosecute a big financial institution.

> That sentiment was echoed as late as 2012 by Lanny Breuer, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, who said in a speech at the New York City Bar Association that he felt it was his duty to consider the health of the company, the industry, and the markets in deciding whether or not to file charges.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wal...

Instead of worrying about the banks he should have been worried about the moral fabric of the country. At least since the bailouts 2008 there is a (mostly justified) perception that the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy. This has made a lot of people very cynical and has allowed a ton of conspiracy theories to rise. If this trend continues there will be a point when people will vote in a dictator.

It’s already a big problem that politics attracts more and more crazy people and reasonable people are staying away.

thanks! So nice to follow up on the source!!

The Chickenshit Club everyone