Re:Four Banks, Including JPMorgan, Fined in Europe Over ‘Car...
by morsch on Tuesday October 28, 2014 @08:29AM
(#8520571)
Having a record of past misbehaviour may be useful in a future fight. Even a billionaire has his driving license revoked if he's repeatedly caught speeding.
Sums that are pocket change to JPMorgan are still usefully spent in the public interest. I don't know if 60 million Euros are, in fact, pocket change for JPMorgan. I cynically assume that they budgeted in an accurate amount for fines and other regulatory hiccups when they start on these endeavours.
Assuming you mean the offender is a group of executives that aren't personally liable for these sorts of fines, well, yeah, that's par for the course. IANAL.
Having a bank go belly up because of these fines seems exceedingly unlikely. Regulatory oversight is (on the face of it and among other things) intended to ensure that the system is less likely to fail catastrophically, and fining banks for failing to observe regulation seems like a necessary part of this.
Whether or not the regulatory oversight has the means or even the willingness to implement the mission they present to the public is another debate. I agree that scepticism is warranted.
From that point of view, these kinds of fine may be characterised as something that doesn't materially affect the bank's profits and hence doesn't deter repeat misbehaviour but serves to establish a facade of regulatory action to appease the public.
Sums that are pocket change to JPMorgan are still usefully spent in the public interest. I don't know if 60 million Euros are, in fact, pocket change for JPMorgan. I cynically assume that they budgeted in an accurate amount for fines and other regulatory hiccups when they start on these endeavours.
Assuming you mean the offender is a group of executives that aren't personally liable for these sorts of fines, well, yeah, that's par for the course. IANAL.
Having a bank go belly up because of these fines seems exceedingly unlikely. Regulatory oversight is (on the face of it and among other things) intended to ensure that the system is less likely to fail catastrophically, and fining banks for failing to observe regulation seems like a necessary part of this.
Whether or not the regulatory oversight has the means or even the willingness to implement the mission they present to the public is another debate. I agree that scepticism is warranted.
From that point of view, these kinds of fine may be characterised as something that doesn't materially affect the bank's profits and hence doesn't deter repeat misbehaviour but serves to establish a facade of regulatory action to appease the public.