Probation and fines which are enough to bankrupt him and the company. Still if the prosecutor has a strong case and is looking to prove a point, well he could go for a lot more.
After watching the New York regulatory hearings is there any doubt the prosecutor is looking to prove a point?
No doubt but I guess it comes down to how far is he willing to go. Knowing HSBC executives for example laundered billions and faced not a day in jail will he still seek the max jail time for the employee of this company in order to prove a (hypcritical) point? Or will he be satisfied with destroying the company along with probation and a plea? I guess we'll find out soon enough.
I honestly doubt he will get more than 3 to 5 years. If he gets 25 years there will some backlash not cuz he did a crime but because of how unfair/balanced the punishment was.
I would agree. But I doubt it goes to court. The prosecutor will threaten 25 years, and settle something on the order of 3 to 5 plus ruinous fines.
How can he pay the fines? They've taken control of all his
BTC. Personally, I think they will try to hammer him, but it depends very much on who he is serving up to the feds. If he spills all, he might get away with a short term. If not, 20 years.
Sometimes fines are meant as licensing fees.
Other times they are intended to ruin a company and its principals forever.
Guess which category Wachovia, HSBC and JPMorgan get, and which Charlie Shrem will get.
