Why don’t penalties for fraudulent or criminal practices START at 100% of all revenue generated by such prectices and go up from there? If the only penalty for stealing $1,000 was a $10 fine, I’d just keep stealing - why are companies expected to do otherwise?
According to the article, that’s what happened. They paid back the $103 million of fraudulent overdrafts and a $150 million fine on top of that as punishment.
Why don’t penalties for fraudulent or criminal practices START at 100% of all revenue generated by such prectices and go up from there? If the only penalty for stealing $1,000 was a $10 fine, I’d just keep stealing - why are companies expected to do otherwise?
Because they can afford to buy legislators and we can’t
Sigh, sad but true…
According to the article, that’s what happened. They paid back the $103 million of fraudulent overdrafts and a $150 million fine on top of that as punishment.