Business Law paper

Submitted By Yuyansophia
Words: 989
Pages: 4

The finical crisis of 08’ was a crisis that astonished many Americans, because of the lack of caution that the finical sector had when giving out loans. The sector thrived on the fact that the U.S. economy needed them and had saw the opportunity to take advantage of the Country by giving out loans that should have never been given in the first place, knowing full well that the government would bail these big executives out, without any criminal charges brought against them. As sated before the financial system is very fundamental to the U.S. economy and any major criminal indictment in the financial system could undoubtedly have a negative effect on shareholders, employees, and the nation as a whole. However by not penalizing these Wall Street CEO’s/CFO’s because they are “too big to fail”, the U.S. is allowing these companies to easily get away with their crimes, and who is to say it won’t happen again? Thus leaving shareholders, employees, and the public susceptible to yet another potential collapse is the finical market that could yet again ruin people’s lives. That being said it is the upmost importance to file civil lawsuits against these companies/executives that caused the financial breakdowns in order to make a statement to these companies that these kinds of actions will not be tolerated. This could be attainable by setting a consistent president by fining/penalizing all companies and/or the executives involved in this finical scandal. Even though many Americans would like to see the Wall Street executives behind bars the prosecutors are faced with many different stipulations associated with winning any criminal case, thus making it difficult to prosecute these company executives. Breuer stated in the documentary that in order to win a criminal case one has to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there had been a crime committed. White goes on to further prove this point by stating “… That federal prosecutors are instructed by Justice Department policy to consider the collateral consequences of a criminal indictment to innocent shareholders, employees, or the public… Certainly prosecutors should consider that before proceeding” (Breslow 2013). Breuer shows how hard it can be to win a criminal, by enlightening the viewers that it is not as simple as just indicting someone and then throwing them in jail, thus making it very difficult to compile a winning case. White is able to also add to this statement by showing readers that the prosecutor should also take into consideration of the additional concerns of the innocent citizens that could be potentially affected by criminal indictments. So a federal prosecutor must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed but also has to take into account the potential consequences that could come of a criminal indictment, thus making it tremendously difficult for any prosecutor to move forward with a case, even if the American public believes that what these business executives did was immoral. It is unanimous among American citizens that these big finical firms broke many laws that if committed by the common man would result in jail time. However none of these big executives did any time, and instead were given assistance from the government. Looking back at our previous assignment we see a consistency between White and Breuer. White stated the Justice Department gives prosecutors instructions to focus on the collateral consequences of criminal indictments. This, according to the documentary is the exact instructions Breuer gave the prosecutors. There is another consistency where White and Breuer both agree that considerations of the potential threat to the economy could be a factor in the decisions of civil penalties. This makes it clear to many that…