I assure you, it is only possible to avoid risk if you're a small fish and extremely careful. For instance, you have a good chance of getting away with skimming a neighborhood stock fund you setup. If you are managing or receiving millions of dollars in investment, you can bet anything fishy will show up on the SECs radar at some point. Most people with large sums of money don't get where they are by being stupid with it, and if they are the victims of fraud, they know where to go. While the SEC can't bring criminal charges, they have top notch investigators. Once they smell the fish, they won't stop until the entire scheme is unraveled.
I can't speak directly to the observation you made, but I personally know a high up SEC investigator, and he obsesses about the most minute details of the cases he works on and lives to take on the toughest cases possible. My guess is distribution of cases the SEC prosecutes are very heavy tailed. There are many dumb cases that are very easy to find and prosecute that involve 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars. Think skimming, ponzi schemes etc. The more sophisticated and larger cases are also more risky (for the fraudster), harder to execute, and much more rare. That might explain your observations.
In 1999, financial analyst Harry Markopolos had informed the SEC that he believed it was legally and mathematically impossible to achieve the gains Madoff claimed to deliver. According to Markopolos, it took him four minutes to conclude that Madoff's numbers did not add up, and another minute to suspect they were likely fraudulent.[73] After four hours of failed attempts to replicate Madoff's numbers, Markopolos believed he had mathematically proved Madoff was a fraud.[74] He was ignored by the SEC's Boston office in 2000 and 2001, as well as by Meaghan Cheung at the SEC's New York office in 2005 and 2007 when he presented further evidence. He has since co-authored a book with Gaytri Kachroo (the leader of his legal team) titled No One Would Listen. The book details the frustrating efforts he and his legal team made over a ten-year period to alert the government, the industry, and the press about Madoff's fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff#Investment_scan...
2. Madoff was caught because his scheme fell apart, not due to any SEC or other government action.
>...avoiding the ire of the SEC is relatively easy if you set your mind to committing fraud without getting caught.
This statement is mostly what I was responding to. Here is a thought experiment. For the sake of this experiment lets say our economy is perfectly competitive. If all an entity had to do to get away with fraud was "set your mind to not getting caught," then every entity that participated in the economy would be committing fraud because it is in their best interest. That sounds wrong, probably because it is. White collar criminals don't plan on getting caught, they do everything they can to get away with their crimes. To me, that qualifies as setting their mind to not getting caught. Well, they get caught anyway.
The companies you bring up (enron, worldcom, madoff) are outliers in the world of securities fraud. they achieved unprecedented levels of success and then failure. Using these cases are counterpoints to an argument that financial crimes are hard to get away with seems silly to me. After all, none of these frauds were successful in the end, instead, people ended up in prison.
>...avoiding the ire of the SEC is relatively easy if you set your mind to committing fraud without getting caught.
The experiment is a simple application of the economic theoretic framework to the statement above. Nothing more. There isn't all that much to argue about here, as long as you accept the framework upon which almost all of theoretical economics is based.
A sufficiently large enough example which failed to be stopped by investigators for a decade could easily outweigh thousands of outliers ultimately being a serious net-negative and outweighing such a dismissal of facts...
The fact such a blatantly wrong example proceed to scale up for a decade and encompass billions of dollars before being shutdown is quite a good example of how any one investigator's knack for detail in their own limited exposure to particular cases (as in your personal analogy) is hardly sufficient to dismiss the idea that all complex cases need not worry of SEC investigation. Quite the opposite.
If anything that means the SEC has smart people but only a limited capacity of attention as they tend to obsess over details in individual cases (as that is what is required in a significant percentage of them). So as long as you're not one of the easy cases (obvious ponzi schemes or involving large sums, significant amounts of people, or popular advertising) then it's not as worrying a threat as they'd like to make it appear.
IMO that is naive. He is an outlier. Sort of like saying committing mass acts of terrorism is easy because 911.
I can't find it now, but I do recall the SEC itself putting the number of frauds they uncovered in the low single digits. I might ask my SEC friend himself what percentage of the iceberg he thinks is uncovered.
The point is, fraud is risky, and it isn't easy. You basically have to be willing to give up your life as you know it. Sometimes I wonder whether fraudsters have an internal dialogue about whether it is worth the risk. And for the fraudsters who aren't psychopaths the guilt of defrauding friends and people who trust you must be enormous. Sounds like a stressful day job that I won't ever be entertaining.