[TrainedMonkey]

I feel like both you and parent are ignoring operational + reputation costs of being naughty boys. If we are saying the bad behavior should not be profitable the fine should be above (ill gotten gains - operational costs it took to acquire them + whatever interest those ill gotten gains received before the culprit got caught).

Reputational losses are also a thing, agencies and whistleblowers will be paying a lot more attention to this sort of thing from JPMorgan from now on. Maybe a lesser effect would be morally conscious people (in finance haha) choosing not to work there.

Of course it is also possible that Chase PR machine greases the right hands to negate all of the downsides, and then you have a point that current political/regulatory climate is allowing this is be a profitable business model.

[BizarroLand]

I'm being dismissive but I doubt JP Morgan Chase is going to suffer any real backlash other than the direct financial punishment they are receiving here. There's also a good chance that they will file suit over it as it's worth spending a few million in lawyer fees to try to reduce or save the $920m entirely, so it's not even over yet.