SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: mph who wrote (2381)12/11/2003 12:27:23 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Read Replies (1) of 90947
 
Well, my understanding is that a lawyer is not permitted (whether by ethical standards or law I'm not sure) to threaten criminal prosecution to gain settlement of a civil matter. In his position as the chief prosecutor of the state, it seems to be, such a violation would be especially egregious because he can do much more than a private attorney - he has power to bring prosecution while the latter can only file a complaint.

As for the comparison to the tobacco settlements, I don't see them as similar at all. The tobacco companies were, as I understand it, only subject to civil complaints - in part for targeting minors and for lying about the health hazards of smoking. There were monetary damages and penalties, and there were non-monetary remedies such as the public service ads they must run. A parallel to the mutual fund situation would be if the tobacco companies were threatened with prosecution for millions of counts of manslaughter if they refused to accept the civil settlement.

Now, perhaps he's found some novel approach to a civil suit over the market timing violations and isn't actually threatening *criminal* prosecution, but that has nothing to do with the level of the fees funds charge investors. Since when do we allow politicians to impose new regulations on commerce through court sanctioned extortion rather than through the legislative process? Which is part of the reason I brought this up - it is another example of populist bypassing of the constitutional balance of powers to impose the will of the few.

Just a layman's perspective, but the SEC seems to agree with me that Spitzer's actions are inappropriate.

Bob
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News