much as I've been trying to believe otherwise, this seems to be the way
business works these days.  it's pretty hard to put a corporation or its
officers in jail, but when you try, it all boils down to money anyway.
lawyers get rich, justice is bent, the corp gets away with its misdeeds and
gets richer.  the shareholders, who may actually have consciences, stop
crying when they go to the bank, conveniently forgetting they're actually
participants in crime.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Fochtman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 9:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Carly in a Nutshell
>
>
> At 10:15 AM 8/22/2003, James B. Byrne wrote:
> >On 20 Aug 2003 at 13:17, Wayne Brown wrote:
> >
> > > The article is titled "Bank in HP merger fined
> > > > $750,000". It can be found at:
> >
> >Is it just me but does anyone else see the incongruity of fining a
> >bank $750,000 when it gained $2,000,000 by the offence?  More to
> >the point, why should the shareholders and customers of a bank
> >have to pay the fines for the misdeeds of employees?  Shouldn't the
> >individuals have to pay?  So long as fines are levied against
> >artificial persons and paid for from the profits of misdeeds where is
> >the incentive to reform behaviour?
>
> I personally feel the same, in terms of Carly swinging HP
> funds this way
> so as to 'influence' the bank as to changing it's vote and
> thereby changing
> the outcome...
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *