{"id":578,"date":"2015-11-27T14:31:52","date_gmt":"2015-11-27T18:31:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bringingfreudtofraud.com\/?p=578"},"modified":"2015-11-27T14:36:35","modified_gmt":"2015-11-27T18:36:35","slug":"corporate-cooperation-fact-or-fiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bringingfreudtofraud.com\/?p=578","title":{"rendered":"Corporate Cooperation: Fact or Fiction?"},"content":{"rendered":"

(By Vic Hartman) Americans\u2019 perception that bankers and Wall Street fat cats escaped accountability for their role in the recent financial crisis has not gone unnoticed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The difficulties in prosecuting these executives has also been discussed on these blog pages, see \u201cHow To Explain the Mortgage Fraud Crisis: A Nash Equilibrium or a Nash Conspiracy?\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

In an attempt to address the issue of individual accountability for their conduct inside a corporation, DOJ Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates issued a Memorandum dated September 9, 2015 to all DOJ attorneys titled \u201cIndividual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing<\/em>.\u201d This six-pronged memo that has subsequently been codified in the United States Attorneys\u2019 Manual is a shot across the bow to counsels representing corporations. A primary tenet states, \u201c. . . in order to qualify for any cooperation credit, corporations must provide to the Department all relevant facts relating to the individuals responsible for the misconduct.\u201d The thrust of the memo is for federal prosecutors to focus on individual conduct throughout their investigations.<\/p>\n

Will this policy change behavior? Will corporate counsels advise boards to start throwing executives under the proverbial bus? Will the threat of tire-tread marks across a pin-stripe suit cause executives to stop enriching themselves at the expense of the American public?<\/p>\n

This policy has actually had two unintended reactions by the audience it intended to captivate.<\/p>\n