Some judges have been complaining about settlements between the government and banks. Here’s one of the cases:
The Barclays settlement, which Judge Sullivan approved last week, involved charges that the British bank helped customers in Iran, Cuba and other sanctioned nations move more than $500 million into the United States, breaking federal law — and undermining national policy — for more than a decade. The bank distributed instructions to employees for circumventing internal controls, for example by obscuring the source of the transfers.
Moreover, employees knew the transfers were illegal.
The cover sheets “must not mention” the offending entity, which could cause the funds to be seized, one employee wrote in an e-mail quoted by prosecutors. “A good example is Cuba, which the U.S. says we shouldn’t do business with but we do.”
The Justice Department agreed not to pursue criminal charges against the bank. In exchange, Barclays admitted to wrongdoing, forfeited $298 million and agreed to improve employee training.
It seems like a lot of money, except:
Profit increased to £2.4 billion, or $3.8 billion, in the first six months of this year from £1.9 billion in the same period last year, the bank said, beating some analyst expectations. Provisions for bad loans and other credit at the entire company fell 32 percent to £3 billion.
The judge doesn’t have much power in settlement cases and so approved the deal even though he wondered at it:
In the Barclays case, Judge Sullivan questioned whether the bank was being penalized if it paid back only the money involved. He said he wanted information about the penalties at another hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
Frederick Reynolds, a lawyer for the Justice Department, defended the agreement and said the amount of money Barclays would pay was “beyond what they earned.”
Wow, somehow I don’t think that’s the standard applied to actual people. If I stole $100 from a store, would I be let go with a fine of $150? Somehow I think not.
Petunias 