We don't need a "crackdown". The problem with our approach to financial crimes is that it is based almost entirely on crackdowns -- splashy press releases that are supposed to deter all the thousands of other financial crimes that we lack resources to prosecute. Sometimes this leads to injustice, e.g., see the documentary film Abacus: Small Enough to Jail. The only bank to be prosecuted criminally for shenanigans in the subprime era.<p>What we do need is vastly more resources for financial regulators, as well as courts. Yes the laws and regs could also be improved, but that is a harder problem. The easy problem is that the people doing good work to combat financial crimes only have the staffing and money to go after a small, small fraction of likely targets. And the courts do not have what they need to handle a high volume of increasingly complex, technical subject-matter.
Well, yes: if you leave enough crime by the well-connected alone for long enough, in a country with poor election integrity and unlimited campaign finance spending, then you get a country run by gangsters. It came about pretty rapidly in Russia where there was no established democracy to displace.
You'd have to completely reframe the penalty for crimes to be percentage based instead of fixed amounts. Even when caught the penalties are often so low that they don't matter, so white collar criminals go right back to it. When you can routinely make $10 million doing something a $1 million fine the one time you get caught just isn't a big deal.<p>The cost-benefit analysis almost always favors the criminal for white collar crimes (or any non-violent crime, really) when you have money. If I had $100m+ I wouldn't really pay attention to the law either.
White collar crimes are problematic. I once saw a case where someone was convicted for selling prescription sleeping pills. It shouldn't be illegal to sell under the counter pills, I thought, but otherwise it was hard to fault the prosecution. The accused was caught trying to sell the pills to an undercover officer, fled from the police, and apprehended with a wide variety of illegal substances on his person. There was little doubt that he was at least guilty of the conduct of which he was accused.<p>White collar crimes are murkier. There is, for example, nothing illegal about getting the upper hand in a transaction. But it can be illegal based on little more than what the seller knew or was thinking at the time of the sale. Even things like false claims to the government often turn on little more than the characterization of certain transactions. A great deal of the white collar prosecutions I've seen have left me unsettled--the evidence was murky or subject to different characterizations, and the "wrong" often turned on the unknowable--the accused's knowledge or intent.
If we have laws that we don't enforce, then we should strike them from the books.
If we are not willing to fund enforcement of a law, we should not pass it.
This will show us what we really value as a society.
We need to punish judicial corruption with the death penalty. Judicial corruption endangers the entire basis of our courts, and is tantamount to treason.
Relevant Twitter thread by Matt Levine<p><a href="https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1033185120520417280" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1033185120520417280</a><p>Tldr: "cracking down on fraud" will mostly harm poor people