Inappropriate rewards

Following the post at reference 1, ironic that I should read in the FT this morning of someone, a former employee of Deutsche Bank, being paid nearly $200m to snitch on said bank for crime, that is to say manipulation of the LIBOR rate. Something set up by us Brits in the days when you could rely on the word of a gentleman. Unless, that is, he was a bounder. Or perhaps a banker.

Apparently paid out under a program set up by the Dodd-Frank Act, otherwise the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the 848 pages of which those who are very curious can read at reference 3. I am not that curious, but it does seem a bit odd that you should pay a citizen what amounts to a commission for doing his or her duty. Maybe some modest payment to cover loss of earnings, reasonable costs and in recognition - but not amounts of this sort. But then, maybe it is just a realistic recognition that to get something done in the US you have to throw money at it. No free lunches to be had anywhere. Can't rely on the professional integrity of the professionals working with money. I wonder if the person concerned was a attorney by trade? Someone who knew that he could make a good thing out of it.

The picture was provided by the attorneys at law at reference 2, presumably one of the many who made pickings of a different sort out of it all. Did they amuse themselves by getting significant hands to pose for the picture?

PS: I wonder now whether there is also something like the witness protection program. So that this concerned citizen can be given a whole new identity, a whole new life, a life which cannot so easily be threatened by hit men from the Mafia or anyone else. With these costs additional to those already mentioned, naturally.

References

Reference 1: https://psmv5.blogspot.com/2021/10/more-corporate-greed.html.

Reference 2: https://www.ligorilaw.com/areas-of-practice/securities-litigation/libor-manipulation.

Reference 3: https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@swaps/documents/file/hr4173_enrolledbill.pdf. Almost as much legal flummery here as you might get in one of the Acts of our own Queen. See, for example, reference 4 below.

Reference 4: https://history.hanover.edu/texts/engref/er80.html. '... Where at the death of our late sovereign lord King Edward VI there remained one uniform order of common service and prayer, and of the administration of sacraments, rites, and ceremonies in the Church of England, which was set forth in one book, intituled: The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies in the Church of England; authorized by Act of Parliament holden in the fifth and sixth years of our said late sovereign lord King Edward VI, intituled: An Act for the uniformity of common prayer, and administration of the sacraments; the which was repealed and taken away by Act of Parliament in the first year of the reign of our late sovereign lady Queen Mary, to the great decay of the due honour of God, and discomfort to the professors of the truth of Christ's religion: Be it therefore enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, that the said statute of repeal, and everything therein contained, only concerning the said book, and the service, administration of sacraments, rites, and ceremonies contained or appointed in or by the said book, shall be void and of none effect, from and after the feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming; and that the said book, with the order of service, and of the administration of sacraments, rites, and ceremonies, with the alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this statute, shall stand and be, from and after the said feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist, in full force and effect, according to the tenor and effect of this statute; anything in the aforesaid statute of repeal to the contrary notwithstanding. And further be it enacted by the Queen's highness, with the assent of the Lords (sic) and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, that all and singular ministers in any cathedral or parish church, or other place within this realm of England, Wales, and the marches of the same, or other the queen's dominions, shall from and after the feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming be bounden to say and use the Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lord's Supper and administration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said book, so authorized by Parliament in the said fifth and sixth years of the reign of King Edward VI, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or otherwise...'.