Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
How is this for enforcemnt? Hello ... SEC ... Wake up!
A BlackRock fund manage has now been banned from the finacial service industry. Why? He got caught failing to pay train fare. And, get this, he can still ride the train! You can read the details through the link below.
- This was a UK action. Wonder how good their enforcement practices are.
- Sounds like moral turpitude action ("conduct fell short of the standards we expect"). Moral turpitude - behaviour that is inherently contrary to accepted rules of morality - requires clear intent (the manager admitted to doing this repeatedly). Theft is considered a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is a reason for disbarring a lawyer. Does financial industry have this standard too?
- I'm thinking that moral turpitude and fiduciary duty intersect (e.g. theft, as here), but one is not a subset of the other. For example, one can be a child molester while still taking prudent care of a client's money - no theft, diligent research, etc.
- No reason why he can't pay for a ticket and ride a train. If someone is found guilty of driving without a license, should that person be prohibited from properly obtaining a license and driving?
Several licensed professions have provisions where licenses can be revoked for crimes of moral turpitude - I'd mentioned lawyers; also real estate agent and doctors. Likely others. Should we hold financial fiduciaries to a lesser standard than real estate agents? Or conversely, does it make sense to hold real estate agents to a greater standard?
The point of moral turpitude is that various industries look at conduct which, while not crimes within the industry (such as the ones you alluded to), reflect upon the person's ability to deal fairly with the public. It's one of those squishy areas; it struck me that this was the standard/reasoning being applied. And there are several professions that apply this standard.
We have rules about permanent revocation of licenses - I've no problem with them, because they're related to future risk (as with your DUI example). I had something different in mind. Rather something like:
16 year old kid backs his dad's car past the driveway into the street. Cop happens to be passing by, gets the kid for driving w/o a license. Kid takes drivers ed, passes road test/written test, gets licensed. Should he be prohibited from driving (riding train) because he previously drove without a license (rode train w/o a ticket)?
So long as the driver (rider) is properly licensed (ticketed), why should the driver (rider) be barred from the legal activity?
I agree with the notion that the punishment should fit the crime. This seems over the top. Perhaps a suspension of license to practice and some remedial training would have sufficed. His firm might fire him anyway.
On the subject of felonies, there are many small crimes that used to be misdemeanors that became a felony. We have to be careful on how the law is being changed. This pertains to the U.S. though.
Burrows’s attempt to exploit a vulnerability in the way rail travel is priced is a microcosm of the behavior of how some traders sought to profit from the way currency and interest rate benchmarks such as Libor are calculated -- regardless of rules requiring honest personal conduct. Banning someone from the industry over something unrelated to work-place conduct shows how seriously the FCA takes telling the truth as it tries to rebuild trust in London’s financial markets, lawyers said.
It's pretty rare that a lawyer loses his license, period. I occasionally read the Cal Bar's disciplinary actions, because it's astonishing to read how much it takes to get a slap on the wrist. (And Calif. is the home of the largest number of lawyers.)
Moral turpitude is a common theme, though usually not the sole or main reason for disbarment. April 2012 may be an exception. That month's Journal listed 9 disbarments, seven of which mentioned moral turpitude. Several of those read along the lines: "a felony involving moral turpitude. As such, it meets the criteria for summary disbarment."
Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, I'm not in California. And I've never been accused of moral turpitude
I don't see thievery (theft of services) as being unrelated to a job in which someone is entrusted to keep others' money safe. Perhaps embezzlement would have been more closely related to the job; still ... stealing is stealing.
@InformalEconomist - thanks for the links. $67K isn't exactly petty larceny.
A gateless system is effectively a proof-of-payment system, where people are trusted to buy their tickets. In order to get people to comply in such systems, there have to be serious penalties for those caught. Simply paying back the amount stolen (plus 1% in legal fees) would constitute a license to steal. (Don't get caught, make money; get caught, pay what you owed, no pain.)
I didn't see this in either article but was imprisonment ever suggested here? Perhaps one year behind bars might have been appropriate and with that he probably would have lost his job. These profesional fields are very tight so further employment would be difficult.
I was involved to a degree with a pharmacist who had been caught pilfering narcotics for his personal use. The State Board suspended his license and ordered him to rehab. After a supposed success with the rehab program his license to practice was reinstated with conditions. He was brought in at our hospital and over time the temptation must have been too much. Eventually he was caught in the act and arrested in front of us. A sad chain of events but maybe he should not have been placed in that situation.
We try to give people a second chance in life. Many times it works and sometimes it doesn't. Should this person have been given a second chance after his repayment of the fares? Perhaps so. He fulfilled his contrition.
There might be more to the story here than we know. I still think the punishment was harsh. He could have been placed into another position with supervision.
I failed to get our subway tickets stamped before getting on the train in Vienna last fall. Two goons from a really bad WWII movie asked my wife and me to step off at the next station, whereupon I was shown the fine print and forced to pay a fine of 103 Euros. They reminded us that the fine could have been double, but that they were being reasonable by fining only one passenger. I wouldn't make the same mistake if I ever go back to enjoy the hospitality.
Comments
- This was a UK action. Wonder how good their enforcement practices are.
- Sounds like moral turpitude action ("conduct fell short of the standards we expect"). Moral turpitude - behaviour that is inherently contrary to accepted rules of morality - requires clear intent (the manager admitted to doing this repeatedly). Theft is considered a crime of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is a reason for disbarring a lawyer. Does financial industry have this standard too?
- I'm thinking that moral turpitude and fiduciary duty intersect (e.g. theft, as here), but one is not a subset of the other. For example, one can be a child molester while still taking prudent care of a client's money - no theft, diligent research, etc.
- No reason why he can't pay for a ticket and ride a train. If someone is found guilty of driving without a license, should that person be prohibited from properly obtaining a license and driving?
The point of moral turpitude is that various industries look at conduct which, while not crimes within the industry (such as the ones you alluded to), reflect upon the person's ability to deal fairly with the public. It's one of those squishy areas; it struck me that this was the standard/reasoning being applied. And there are several professions that apply this standard.
We have rules about permanent revocation of licenses - I've no problem with them, because they're related to future risk (as with your DUI example). I had something different in mind. Rather something like:
16 year old kid backs his dad's car past the driveway into the street. Cop happens to be passing by, gets the kid for driving w/o a license. Kid takes drivers ed, passes road test/written test, gets licensed. Should he be prohibited from driving (riding train) because he previously drove without a license (rode train w/o a ticket)?
So long as the driver (rider) is properly licensed (ticketed), why should the driver (rider) be barred from the legal activity?
On the subject of felonies, there are many small crimes that used to be misdemeanors that became a felony. We have to be careful on how the law is being changed. This pertains to the U.S. though.
From BBC News:
bbc.com/news/business-30475232
Moral turpitude is a common theme, though usually not the sole or main reason for disbarment. April 2012 may be an exception. That month's Journal listed 9 disbarments, seven of which mentioned moral turpitude. Several of those read along the lines: "a felony involving moral turpitude. As such, it meets the criteria for summary disbarment."
Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, I'm not in California. And I've never been accused of moral turpitude
I don't see thievery (theft of services) as being unrelated to a job in which someone is entrusted to keep others' money safe. Perhaps embezzlement would have been more closely related to the job; still ... stealing is stealing.
@InformalEconomist - thanks for the links. $67K isn't exactly petty larceny.
A gateless system is effectively a proof-of-payment system, where people are trusted to buy their tickets. In order to get people to comply in such systems, there have to be serious penalties for those caught. Simply paying back the amount stolen (plus 1% in legal fees) would constitute a license to steal. (Don't get caught, make money; get caught, pay what you owed, no pain.)
I was involved to a degree with a pharmacist who had been caught pilfering narcotics for his personal use. The State Board suspended his license and ordered him to rehab. After a supposed success with the rehab program his license to practice was reinstated with conditions. He was brought in at our hospital and over time the temptation must have been too much. Eventually he was caught in the act and arrested in front of us. A sad chain of events but maybe he should not have been placed in that situation.
We try to give people a second chance in life. Many times it works and sometimes it doesn't. Should this person have been given a second chance after his repayment of the fares? Perhaps so. He fulfilled his contrition.
There might be more to the story here than we know. I still think the punishment was harsh. He could have been placed into another position with supervision.