JPMorgan Admits to Widespread Recordkeeping Failures, Agrees to Pay $125M
One of the recurring themes in comment sections around fines for banks and large businesses is that "the fine is not in proportion to the size of the business".<p>I guess it makes sense to ask then, do we want to have fines that are proportional to the revenue/profit/"X"-value of a business (and how might that get gamed)? Where if a small business is sued for something like this, it will only pay $100 while a larger business for the same infraction will pay $100,000,000? And if we're ok with that, are we ok then also acknowledging that we completely disincentive any sort of legal enforcement of small businesses, from a cost/benefit perspective?<p>I actually think the inverse is true: if the SEC has decided that the correct penalty for recordkeeping failures is $125M, it is likely a balance of proportionality to the crime, cost of enforcement, and proportion to victimhood of the crime. The question I always wonder around this is, how much of this $125M goes back towards victims (if any) and how much goes towards further agency enablement to pursue criminal activity? Is $125M enough for the SEC to open X more cases (knowing how overcapacity they and every other government agency are)?