[MysticFear]

So the worst penalty for a financial crime is to lose all your money? Low odds of being caught, very high reward, and assuming you didn't have money to begin with a zero penalty for being caught. Seems like a financial criminal's dream.

[ashray]

Well, if you really didn't commit the financial crime for monetary gain then what was it for ? Just trolling the copyright industry ? There needs to be a deeper look at the situation in this case because the law being discussed right now is really about pirates making money off being pirates.

How is losing all your booty not a big enough deterrent ?

Edit: Also, I'd like to make a distinction here between copyright infringement and financial fraud. I don't think it's been proven yet that people are losing jobs and companies are becoming bankrupt because of large scale copyright infringement. That isn't the same as financial fraud. Personally, I'd like my tax dollars to go first to a jail that houses someone that poses immediate physical danger to me or someone else. Then a list of other things. And finally to those 'dangerous' young'uns from the pirate bay. They're pretty far down the list of evil doers.

[pessimizer]

>How is losing all your booty not a big enough deterrent?

If that's all you lose, it's not a deterrent at all. If the punishment for stealing is simply that I have to give back all that I got caught stealing, I would never not be stealing because there would be absolutely no risk that I would end up worse off than my present state.

[ashray]

Yes, you're right. But the idea is to take everything away + impose fines/penalties (but not like those $1 million per download kinds of fines). I just think that jail time seems overboard for this kind of thing. Even a fine that may take a few years to pay off is a pretty harsh punishment. But maybe it'll push our already talented pirates to do something more worthwhile and work to pay them back ?

[rayiner]

If you have no money to begin with, you're probably in no position to commit a real financial crime. "Poor people financial crimes" are still crimes involving some level of physical violence (breaking into a house, picking someone's pocket, etc).

If you do have money to begin with, taking it all away and imposing fines/wage garnishment as penalties are a major deterrent.

[ledge]

"Rich people financial crimes" involve an aspect of violence too, or at least can have the same impact as violence. When Bernie Madoff screws someone out of their savings, and that person then can't pay their insurance/medical bills, I would say that fits under a broad definition of violence.

For someone with Madoff's connections, it wouldn't be hard to acquire a false identity and resume some kind of low-level fraud. Putting him in prison is the best way to protect the public IMO.

I personally think that prison sentences are just as valid for non-violent crime as violent crime anyway. It's a disincentive, it's aptly punitive in cases such as Madoff's, and it makes it harder for the offender to re-offend.

[MysticFear]

You should watch CNBC's American Greed. Highlights numerous white collar financial crimes from pyramid schemas to embezzlement. Most people I found came from low wage jobs into multi-millionaires.