> A $9 billion settlement in June between BNP Paribas and five different regulators for circumventing sanctions on Iran and Sudan almost fell apart, according to a Reuters report, when New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, demanded a bigger slice of the action. The governor and the state attorney also clashed over the distribution of $613m from a settlement by JPMorgan Chase.
> In August New York disclosed in a budget report that it had received a total of $4.2 billion from settlements so far this year.
This is racketeering at its worst, and it is purely governmental. It’s an immense extortion racket.
> Eric Holder, the attorney-general, announced that criminal prosecutions of companies resulted in the Justice Department collecting $5.5 billion in direct payments and played a part in the collection of another $2.6 billion by other federal agencies, states and designated recipients.
> But the idea Mr Holder was putting over—that prosecutions can be treated as a government profit centre—is gaining ground. In February Manhattan’s federal prosecutor, Preet Bharara, announced that his office alone had, over a fiscal year that differed slightly from Mr Holder’s, collected $2.9 billion.
So this is all now a “government profit center”.
Which ties in with the horrible fees levied upon the poor by the criminal injustice system.
> Vast amounts are also being scooped up as civil fines. A report by The Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund, an interest group based in Washington, DC, found that since 2012 state and federal authorities have received $20 billion from settlements tied to a single law, the False Claims Act, signed by Lincoln in 1863 to protect the government from being ripped off by suppliers fitting out the Union army.
> The return to the Justice Department on these sorts of cases, often started off by whistleblowers who receive a share of the settlements, is 20:1, says Patrick Burns, co-executive director of the fund. That makes pursuing them attractive: “We are on the edge of a new era of incentivised integrity programmes.”
> The office of Rhode Island’s attorney-general recently bought the building next door to its headquarters, adding to a statewide shopping spree by law-enforcement institutions that included squad cars, tasers, rifles, a police station and the replenishment of underfunded police pensions. Footing the bill is Google, which chose to pay $500m, split between the state and the federal government, to settle claims arising from its acceptance of ads for prescription drugs from Canada.
I bet the Germans wouldn’t be so unhappy with Google if they could arrange for some sort of extortion scheme to make Google pay for a bunch of stuff.
Note that these are all voluntary settlements.
Which means that the details are almost never revealed.
And there is no proof of guilt.
> “Contrary to the conventional wisdom,” write Margaret Lemos and Max Minzner in an article in January’s Harvard Law Review, “public enforcers often seek large monetary awards for self-interested reasons divorced from the public interest in deterrence. The incentives are strongest when enforcement agencies are permitted to retain all or some of the proceeds of enforcement—an institutional arrangement that is common at the state level and beginning to crop up in federal law.”
So this is the same damned thing, but on a federal level.
It is no small wonder that the most civilly disobedient act alleged to have been committed by Jesus-ben-Joseph was whipping the tax collectors out of the temple.
@Cerberus It is difficult to understate the critical function of the Fifth Estate in shining the light of public scrutiny on these atrocities against good sense and fair practice. Muck-raking is too mild a term for what they are doing.