Why should the court impose a judgment in a case in which the SEC alleges a serious securities fraud, but the defendant neither admits nor denies wrongdoing?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Once I really got into securities fraud prosecutions, I came to realize how central they were to the maintenance of a free market and how, in many ways, they are far more important to the welfare of our society than many of the more sensational criminal cases that one hears about.
Securities fraud generally and insider trading in particular should be eminently deterrable crimes.
I want to be clear. No company is too big to be prosecuted. We have zero tolerance for corporate fraud, but we also recognize the importance of avoiding collateral consequences whenever possible.
There are bombshells that happen in court. Especially when the defense doesn't share discovery of material the way the prosecution does, and so surprises always happen. Things pop out without warning.
One thing I know from personal experience, judges hate it when parties talk publicly about their cases. There are a lot of things about our criminal legal system that need to be changed, and this is just one of them. Prosecutors know how to play the press. Most defendants don't.
The law courts must appear as a threatening gesture toward secret vice. The bank must declare: here your money is secure and well looked after by honest people.
It's not fair that the accused is not protected from adverse publicity whilst the accuser is guaranteed anonymity, whatever the verdict.
Well, we want to make sure there's not securities fraud.
A lapse in judgment is not a crime.
That's the whole point of... of prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system. It's finding a just outcome in an individual case.