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".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?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)?