784
Banks hit with $549 million in fines for use of Signal, WhatsApp to evade regulators’ reach (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Banks hit with $549 million in fines for use of Signal, WhatsApp to evade regulators’ reach::Wells Fargo, a relatively small player on Wall Street, racked up the most fines Tuesday, with a total of $200 million in penalties.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 109 points 3 years ago (4 children)

It's cost if doing business for them though, the "fines" are a farce, just protection money paid to a gang.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 56 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    they really need to start with forfeiting all profits. and then maybe a percentage-based fine on top of that.

    make it really painful, in the only place these people can be hurt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 36 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    How about sending the people responsible to prison?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    it's more complicated when it's an entire corporation. Corporations only care about the bottom line so they'll let their minions take the blame. The only real solution is to hurt them in the wallet enough that they have to play by the rules to make a profit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Not really. Put the C suite in prison and I'm sure the next crew will think twice. They can try and throw underlings under the bus but we don't have to accept that. The buck stops at the top.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Can't put people into prison for things they didn't do, and demonstrating RICO is a lot harder than it sounds. I guarantee you, you start going after their profits and making them take losses, the behavior stops immediately, and across the board.

    they'd just get another C-Suite.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    They always defend their ridiculous income by saying that it's proportional to their level of responsibility? Then the board is responsible for everything that happens in the company unless they can pin point exactly who did what under whose guidance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    They'll just pass it along to the customers though, that would have to be made very illegal first.. and even then they'd probably do it anyway and blame it on the tellers. In the sea of illegal things Wells Fargo has already done that wouldn't even make a ripple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    They can pass whatever they want on to the customer; as long as they follow the rule of law. If they charge too much, their buissnes idea was unsound and will most likely be done better by a competitor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 3 years ago

    I feel like they need to apply charges like conspiracy and fraud against the individuals responsible. When I worked in national security oriented roles, the standard response when being asked to break the law (eg reveal classified info) was to say “I could do that, but I look really bad in orange.”

    If the individuals being asked to commit violations and crimes were held individually responsible more often, people would be less likely to do it.

    White collar crime costs the economy far more than other kinds of crime, and that’s due to a lack of enforcement caused by misaligned priorities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The obvious first step is revocation and personal barring for life every single person who participated in the communication from holding a SEC license. The second is jail time for anyone who did it willfully. The third is revocation of their corporation or, in the interest of stockholders who are about to become personally liable, a 50 year probationary period in which revocation of corporation is automatic should any other infraction come to light.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Fines as a percentage of revenue. A big percentage. That’ll stop this nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Revocation of corporate status. A corporation is a status set out in US law. No corporate status, no legal protection for officers or shareholders. All liability falls personally and directly on the owners.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago*

    Yeah, seriously, why do people forget this so easily? THE GOVERNMENT GRANTS SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO CORPORATIONS. Any stipulations, limitations, or exceptions are absolutely fair game. Ideally, we grant corporate charters to promote commerce and benefit society. Nobody has a right to a corporate charter, so if a corporation is harming us, we should terminate it like the pregnancy of a Republican's mistress.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent