But, innocent until proven guilty; if there's no indication of any missing evidence, it'll stay at the failure to retain data fine.
That would seem to be an indication of missing evidence
It doesn’t matter whether or not the above paragraph is reality, because masses perceive it as reality, and trust in public institutions continues to dive. If confidence isn’t restored soon, then things might start to destabilize
Innocent until proven guilty is not quite fair to apply to corporations that get bailed out by taxpayers when the policemen are driving bicycles trying to enforce the speed limit on a highway full of McLarens.
When a company has positioned itself to be a critical organ of society, it should be required to function properly. The rules of nature do not forgive a well meaning hare that didn't intend to be eaten by a lion.
I love this. Consider yourself quoted.
If its service is crucial and no other company can replace it, then there is a high risk that it makes use of its position by charging an arm and a leg for essential services.
That is proof of missing evidence.
Nobody (who isn't a moron) is going to send an email about intentionally doing this, or talk about it with someone who wouldn't also be implicated if discovered. If you saw everything, kept careful notes, and decided to become a whistleblower, your career would be destroyed and your life might even be in danger.
This is ofcourse false. But given how little effort you made on this comment i assume nothing will change your mind:(
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/business/banks-fined-text...
Source? There is a revolving door, but it’s as much between industry and the SEC as it is between it and the rest of the public sector.
Well, honestly I am surprised at how extensive the commissioners' background is in public service and/or education.
If you need people people with experience in banking and finance, especially the legal and regulatory/compliance areas, where would you do your recruiting?
A regulator that regularly pulls exclusively from industry insiders should raise eyebrows. Now whether the SEC actually pulls the majority of hires from industry insiders, that's another question I can't readily answer. Don't have those figures.
A lot of people fail to realize how crucial financial institutions are for society. Everything we do has national currency as a middleman, and national currency is more under private control than under public.
$125M is a fee for stealing as much as you wish, since you have the power to print money. Need more assets? Just give out credit more loosely for a while. Then "accidentally" delete the records of what money went where, then get bailed out.
Commercial banks get to create and spend currency before its impact hits the wider market through inflation. In addition, the rate of creation has to continuously surpass debt repayment, otherwise there is a liquidity crisis. They have an immense privilege, and as such, should be held to much higher standards.
"Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws."
If the violation of even the standards we have results in less than a month's worth of PROFIT for several years of wrongdoing, how are these rules or outcomes fair?
So, what you're saying is that if the actual evidence shows something worse than what the judge will assume it says, then you should 'accidentally' delete it.
I think there are plenty of cases of this happening.
Basically a lot of that email was subject to litigation holds. If that litigation ends up depending on some email that Chase was supposed to retain but failed to, the judge is allowed to give a "spoliation inference" instruction to the jury - the jury can infer that the evidence would have been unfavorable to Chase.
The fact that this may have been due to incompetence rather than malice means this is less likely.
That wouldn't be in the deleters interest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference