| So, you think the punishment should fit the revenue rather than the crime? It should be whatever the law says it should be. In an ideal world... it should be in proportion to the pain and suffering caused by JPM's "willfully" (as concluded by investigators) failing to adhere to its legal obligations to report on Madoff's activities, once it became aware of them internally. Perhaps then some, given obvious indifference (on the part those responsible at JPM) to the potential for harm caused to unsophisticated investors while they were busy looking covering their... annual bonuses. Quoting from yesterday's NYT article[1]: On two occasions, in 2007 and 2008, JPMorgan’s own computer system raised red flags about Mr. Madoff, according to prosecutors. But both times, prosecutors say, JPMorgan employees “closed the alerts.” “JP Morgan failed to carry out its legal obligations while Bernard Madoff built his massive house of cards,” George Venizelos, a senior F.B.I. official, said in a statement.
The F.B.I. and prosecutors traced the problem to JPMorgan “willfully” failing to create sufficient controls against money laundering. “There was no meaningful effort by the Bank to examine or investigate the Madoff Securities banking relationship,” prosecutors said. The fact that the SEC was also asleep at the switch does not in any way absolve JPM of its own culpability in this disaster. Even so, in human terms, the worst of the penalties "suffered" by anyone at JPM is unlikely to begin to compare to the losses suffered by Madoff's non-institutional investors as a result of JPM's actions. [1] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/jpmorgan-settles-with... |