Finally, a judge stands up to Wall Street
rollingstone.com
rollingstone.com
By not telling us what law Citigroup violated and giving us the language in the law so we can make our own judgment this article prevents us from discussing the issue intellectually. Which makes it just an emotional argument and hence inappropriate for HN
If the SEC can't prove their case, then they shouldn't be imposing any fine at all.
"The amazing thing about the wave of corruption that has overtaken the financial services industry is that most of it couldn’t happen without virtually every player at every level signing off on these deals. From the ratings agencies to the law firms to the accounting firms to the regulators to the bank executives themselves, everybody had to be on board in order for a lot of these fraud schemes to work.
"Judges are a part of that picture, and too often, members of the bench sign off on dirty deals made between banks and regulators when the law says that such settlements must be “fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest.”
Edit: changed Bank of America to Citigroup. Wrong bank.
2. Editorialising
3. Inaccurate in its implications (what, no judge has ever "stood up to Wall Street", whatever that means, before?)
4. From Rolling Stone, and not on the subject of music.