The Securities and Exchange Commission has been taking a lot of heat recently after a federal judge refused to sign off on its $285 million settlement with Citigroup because, as is usual in these types of deals, the bank would neither admit its guilt nor profess innocence, and no evidence was ever entered into the record. But now the SEC says it won’t be letting rulebreakers get off so easily — well, at least not all the time.
Before anyone goes high-fiving the SEC for getting tough, the new rule mostly applies to settlements with parties that have admitted to or been convicted of criminal violations. According to the NY Times, it will also apply to cases where a company enters an agreement with criminal authorities to defer prosecution or to not prosecute as part of a settlement.
The SEC’s standard, “neither admit nor deny” agreement will apply to settlements wherein there are only civil securities law violations, which would include the pending Citigroup settlement.
But the rule change is an improvement, as the SEC had even been allowing companies that had admitted guilt to the Justice Department to get off without having to admit or deny guilt in the civil settlement.
Even though it’s only really come under the heat lamp in recent months, the SEC says it’s been mulling over this rule change since last spring. Of course, during that time period, it’s settled for billions of dollars with banks and other financial institutions that did not have to fess up to wrongdoing.
S.E.C. to Change Policy on Companies’ Admission of Guilt [NY Times]
More From Consumerist
-
College Football Hall Of Fame Coach Accused Of Swindling $80 Million From Colleagues, Players In Ponzi Scheme
-
Sen. Warren: Why Can Banks Commit Crimes But Get Away Without Admitting Guilt?
-
Sen. Warren Asks Bank Regulators If “Too Big To Fail” Has Become “Too Big For Trial”
-
Report: CEOs Earn 345 Times What The Average Worker Takes Home
-
SEC Warns Netflix CEO: A Facebook Post Does Not A Disclosure To Investors Make
“Your honor…I neither confirm nor deny my innocence in this case of murder, but I’ve written you a check for $50,000.” “I see nothing wrong with this!”
the only problem is that the check is missing a zero.
Relative to the crime, I’m not so sure. Granted, it’s very difficult to compare murder and financial fraud. It’s not fair to give any death a dollar value. That being said, we as a people have put fine and jail penalties on the books and so thus you can compare it to actual case law and state and federal laws.
So, is one financial fraud equal to one murder? No, of course not. But some of these cases the SEC brings to court involve hundreds or even thousands of violations – sometimes willful – and that quickly adds up to millions in fines.
Now, we all here see comments about the need for tort reform, and that class action suits rarely or just meekly benefit the victims. If so, then 50k for a murder does seem to be in line with the real money lost of victims of corporate fraud.
If someone dies from lack of heat or medical care etc. because they lack money do to fraud then yes it is murder.
I was hoping this story was about college football.
+1. Stupid SEC.
Yeah, I mean, I’m totally on board with being substantially more upset about some worthless football bullshit than something which directly affects the health of both our justice and financial systems.
Oh puh-leeze. The SEC is nothing but a bunch of limp-wristed ninnies that shake down corporate villains for a little extra cash. Now the SEC has decided to escalate from ‘speaking sternly to’ law-breakers to ‘shaking a pointed finger.’ What’s next?
It’s like watching a three-legged Lhasa Apso bark at the junkyard dogs. Go get ‘em, big guy.
Also, my apologies to limp-wristed persons, for comparing them to the SEC.
More to the point, the financial institutions see SEC settlements as mere costs of business. The potential fees from their fraudulent activities are already factored in before they start their fraudulent activities.
It’s a joke.
It would be easy to punish companies. Criminal charges valid? How long is the sentence was supposed to be for a human? Ok, for the same number of years, ALL profits are gone to the government, aka 100% tax. All companies will start follow the law, to the dot.
Genius , but how long do you think it will take for the company to decide to pay off all Debts that year and have Zero Profits? And seriously, it would hurt the Small stock holders more.
The Company would just pay off those big Loans that are not Due yet, and leave a couple Million Surplus as a Cushion. Then in 3 years when they get their Profits back, they will have paid off all the bills and will have record profits!
Anything we come up with to hurt them they will find a way around. I say Jail is the only thing that will stop it.
Paying debt isn’t an expense, and thus wouldn’t reduce profit. Sure, they could increase expense during those X years, but simply paying off loans has no immediate impact on the income statement.
If anything, it would INCREASE profits, as the annual interest expense would be gone.
As I understand it, the SEC will be writing some strongly worded letters to financial organizations who continually violate the the rules.
You do not want to receive three of those. Three letters and you’ll receive a citation. Five citations and you’re looking at a violation. Four of those and you’ll receive a verbal warning. Keep it up and you’re looking a written warning. Two of those; that’ll land you in a world of hurt.
What a useless organization. Let’s setup a big regulatory bureacracy then never truly hold anyone accountable.
And more of those is a good thing?
Did he say that? No. That’s a nasty jerk in your knee, there.
ABOUT time I cannot understand how a company can pay a large fine for doing a wrongful act and not plead guilty– If a regular person in court tried that they would be jailed — maybe that is an answer for corporations also.
They will let people off; all that needs to be done is to slip a few fat envelopes to the right people at the SEC. The big banks and wall street know full well the SEC will never really slap them.