Further, because the complexity and opacity of markets and firms makes finding and proving specific securities fraud instances difficult and expensive, makes pinning those instances on the actual decision-makers difficult and expensive, and makes securing consequences that actually stop the fraud functionally or as a deterrent difficult and expensive, it is prudent and pragmatic to identify those decision-makers and to go after them for anything and everything you can find. If you're a high-powered banker and hedge fund manager who uses sophisticated strategies to fleece millions of Americans out of their investments, you shouldn't get off because investigators can't get at the smoking gun documents that you burned or hid from discovery. I want them to ignore the small-fry and go after you with everything they've got.
We did not do this after 2008, which is why we are where we are.
So again, the correct question is not a skeptical, "What crime has been committed?", but a willful," What crimes can we find among the people involved here, whatever they are?". I have no moral qualms or compunction about this, and no one who remembers the ravages of the GFC or the last few years will have an issue, either.
[–] pc86 2 days ago
[–] 59percentmore 2 days ago
I expect investigators to follow up on reasonable suspicion, which is what unusual market events or behavior should arouse. The crime and the perpetrator are found at the same time, because one can't exist without the other, legally speaking; to start with a definitive crime is to assume guilt, which, as you say, is incorrect. You triangulate on the crime-perpetrator (think space-time); this, of course, means that you must investigate people who are merely suspected of committing a crime. Some will be wholly innocent. Some will present evidence of crime other than the one you initially suspected; you should pursue that, too, in the interests of justice.
Speak only for yourself, please.
>How exactly do you tell the difference between the trader who fleeces millions and the trader who is simply good at their job and makes an equivalent amount of money?
Most tyrants don't believe they're actually tyrants.
The point of an efficient market is that it's difficult to beat, and the difficulty increases exponentially. Unless you cheat.
At the risk of feeding the trolls...
> If you're a high-powered banker and hedge fund manager who uses sophisticated strategies to fleece millions of Americans out of their investments
How exactly do you tell the difference between the trader who fleeces millions and the trader who is simply good at their job and makes an equivalent amount of money?