[AnthonyMouse]

> Not at all. The SEC is thinking not in terms of this one crime, but in terms of the hundred CEOs who will feel tempted to commit securities fraud in the future, and the hundreds of thousands of investors who will fear such fraud.

The deterrence argument can be used to justify anything. Why don't we behead the entire families of petty thieves? Think of the millions of other thieves who would be deterred.

It's a false dichotomy. The choices aren't "scott free" or "nuclear option" -- if their case was as strong as is being assumed, all they would have had to do is ask for what they got in the settlement and then get that in the proceeding. It wouldn't even remove the incentive to settle because that still allows them to avoid a determination of guilt.

They could also have just given the settlement negotiations more time before making a public charge to begin with. Give the other side's lawyers a chance to explain things to their client for a while first.