In 2008 the money was followed, the suspects wiretapped, the investigation swift, arrests certain

[jpgray]

I'm not talking about a $2 trillion bank and its officers running a factory of fraud and crime, plunging millions into misery, and meeting their just punishment, but of a few Somali women who gave around $8,600 to a terrorist organization.

In the eyes of the federal government, Amina Ali and Hawo Hassan knew al-Shabab was a terrorist group when they sent money to the Somali militia - and even "rejoiced" when they learned al-Shabab carried out a suicide bombing.

...

The government alleges Ali and Hassan raised money through door-to-door solicitations and teleconferences involving guest lecturers. While some of that money went to legitimate charities, about $8,600 was sent to al-Shabab through "hawalas," money-transfer businesses that the Somali diaspora uses to wire money back to their families, Paulsen said.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/10/03/general-us-terrorism-us-somalia_8714464.html

That can net you twelve counts of material support to terrorists, each count carrying a fifteen year maximum sentence. Ali could conceivably be sentenced to 180 years.

For the banks, there will be no following of money. There will be no wiretaps. There will be no swift and decisive investigation commensurate with the scale and complexity of the crime. There will be no arrests of those who organized and led the way to criminal acts. No officer of malefactor banks risks a lifetime in prison.

I ask you to compare two financial crimes. One from Ali, one from a massive bank. Who would argue the crime most thoroughly investigated, most aggressively pursued, most certain of punishment, was the one which did the most harm?

[TheWraith]

1. Which crime from a massive bank?

Again: the problem is deregulation, meaning that the things they did were made legal.

[jpgray]

2. Would fraud on a scale to attract AGs from all fifty states qualify?

Unfortunately the lack of aggressive DOJ and FBI investigation (even with BoA) suits your argument. We know better about the books of a Somali woman from Rochester than we do about the books of a $2 trillion bank. No one will have to ask "what crime" about the former, but that's thanks to the investigation.

[TheWraith]

3. So because it's being investigated by 50 AGs plus the DOJ...

...it's not being investigated, because nobody has been arrested? Are you familiar with the idea of a complex investigation?

[jpgray]

5. Yes, all aggressive investigations end in settlement and immunity from civil actions

As a historian of the Obama DOJ, how many times do you suppose that's happened with regard to banks?

[leveymg]

4. An entire economy has tumbled because of the banksters. Their punishment should fit the crime.

Either the state will begin to deal with it or the people will deal out their own sort of justice. This isn't the '70s - the cavalry won't come galloping over the hill to save them this time.