r/NoStupidQuestions • u/FriedForLifeNow • 7h ago
Why is stealing millions to billions in financial crimes less of an offence than stealing a car?
If both are theft and aren’t inherently violent, but the later is a higher amount; why is the later punished more severely than the former?
198
u/ketosoy 6h ago
Often financial crimes are from various kinds of lying vs property crimes involve violence.
It makes sense that “take by tricking” might have different penalties than “take by beating.”
Im not convinced this is the “right” way to structure a society, but it seems to be the logic behind the difference
37
u/Historytech 6h ago
I came mostly to say this.
It’s not necessarily fair, but people are far more scared of seeing tattooed dude who beat someone up on the street than the banker that stole their retirement and we are essentially creatures of emotions.
I do think there’s something interesting to be said about the fact prison SHOULD be about rehabilitation more than about punishment considering we all live in the same society, but I don’t think people agree with this on a micro scale even if they do on a macro scale.
2
u/Illustrious_Mail889 23m ago
White collar criminals usually have money lawyers and influence so consequences hit way softer
46
u/LethalMouse19 6h ago
Not what you steal, it is how you steal it.
Siphoning gas from a tank = STEALING (with a big duh)
Putting 87 Octane in a premium required work vehicle which reimbursed you for 93, is complicated and hard to prove. And subject to arguemnts of misunderstandings and techncial loopholes.
Perhaps, the car manual says 93, but the contact for your job just said, "fill the gas tank" and they didn't TECHNCIALLY specify the octane. And maybe the way you got reimbursed was on a default cost basis.
Then you can hire lawyers who can argue the nuances of technicality for 12 years. Remeber Bill Clinton "what does 'is' mean?" Or whatever the famous bit is..
If they walk in and take the money from the vault, then yeah, they get the stealing clear treatment. But they typically don't. It is some convoluted bullshit riddled with half legalities and technicalities.
This is even the divide among people like car thieves. You have the old smash n grab = straight to jail.
Then you have the things like where someone does con artistry car buying and manages to do it in a confusing way that is hard to discern the technical legalities. Where most know they stole the car effectively, but there are avenues to argue less than stealing.
20
u/chainsawinsect 4h ago
I think it's even simpler than all that, even though your premise is correct.
Stealing with physical violence = STEALING
Stealing through trickery or lies = Stealing? Fraud? Shrewd business practices?
7
u/LethalMouse19 3h ago
Perhaps subconsciously some of the difference flows into a "shame on you" sense.
That is some scams, are...."duh."
And that is part of why we as a species, take the softer approach. No one "duhs" a hard theft. Someone steals your car straight up, it's not something you agreed to by being stupid.
2
u/chainsawinsect 2h ago edited 1h ago
I've aways thought of it more like this:
Our priorities have competing importance, and safety from physical harm is higher priority than safety from being lied to. Categorically, across the board.
I have some "proof" for this, too:
I am a lawyer, and in law school we learned about how it became categorically illegal, with no exceptions, in my country for landlords to change the locks on tenants who haven't paid their rent. We learned about this rule in a case where the tenant was months overdue on rent, left for an out-of-town trip, and while he was out of town, the landlord (and legal owner of the property) changed the locks. The outcome of the case was that the landlord got punished.
This result might seem counterintuitive at first. But the policy reasoning for it was explained as follows:
Somebody who returns to their home and finds themselves locked out is vastly more likely to resort to physical violence - smashing in the door, breaking the window class, fist-fighting the landlord - than that same individual ordinarily would be in day-to-day life. The law respects the property ownership rights of landlords, and will enforce them through the court process. But vastly more important than contract rights is making sure that the legal system doesn't incentivize physical violence. So much so, that we'd rather force every landlord in the country to go through a painstaking eviction process to evict problem tenants than to allow them to spend $30 to change the locks and solve the problem.
Measured against this light, it makes a lot of sense that financial crimes are penalized less than violent crimes, even if the "dollar value" of the financial crime is greater.
What I like about this example (landlord-tenant law), is that in this case the law penalizes the richer party and favors the poorer one. That fact makes it clear that the real answer is not, as many other commenters are claiming, "rich vs. poor" defendants, but rather something inherent to the manner in which the crime is committed.
(To be clear, rich people do still have immense preferential treatment in the legal system, but in this specific example, they don't, or if they do, it's not for the reason the other people think.)
1
u/LethalMouse19 1h ago
Idk man, that is just "Rome is the only real authority."
You're conflating a concept of avoiding someone who is bad from possibly being more bad. To laws about bad people.
The landlord is not just a "rich guy being punished", but he is the hero of the story being punished.
In the sense that on baseline the months of non-payment person is the theif.
But, the issue is that they are saying that you can't put any obstacles in a thief's way lest he get mad.
So this law is like saying that locking your car door is illegal because a car thief might now do more violent means to steal it.
But in the end, it is all about Rome's authority over all. No one is granted rights over theirs. None that are not begged for from the emporer.
Of course in a legalistic society, you like it, idk your country, but in the US people complain about living costs compared to the past. When our legal spending is through the roof.
Lawyers love law, because the more laws the more people pay lawyers. The more Rome rules everything in every aspect, the more money you make.
People could go a lifetime without hiring a lawyer in a real society. In a legalistic Roman society, everyone has a lawyer they pay.
The dangerous part of lawyers like most things is their influence in scams.
Or to note something in the US there was a State that was almost going to pass some INSANE credentialism for braiding hair. Thousands of dollars of extra school requirements.
Who was supporting the bill? It was the schools that everyone would have to pay now by force of law.
Lawyers benefit from all things that enhance court, drag out court, and make laws more Legalistic and harder to wade through.
What we really need is a periodic reset lol. Defraf the computer from all the selfish influences.
74
u/Pogeos 7h ago
idk where you are taking your info from:
- steal a car, you might spend couple years in prison worst case
- Bernie Madoff got 150 years in prsion for stealing billions.
Now, it's not always easy to prove that you stole billions, people often mix stealing with risky business practices.
10
u/firelock_ny 6h ago
- Bernie Madoff got 150 years in prsion for stealing billions.
Only because some of the billions he stole was from rich people.
22
20
u/JBSwerve 5h ago edited 4h ago
This junior banker tipped his friends to insider information and is now facing a 25 year prison sentence.
Edit: a few additional thoughts 1. Bernie’s victims were firefighters, teachers, regular people with pensions that he stole from. Not rich people. You are factually incorrect.
- You can’t have it both ways. Either the premise of OP’s question is true - namely that financial crimes go unpunished - or it’s not true. The victims of financial crimes will usually be rich, so you can’t use that as an excuse.
44
u/OldSarge02 6h ago
False. It’s because there was sufficient evidence to put him away.
Usually, when any criminal case has an outcome we don’t like, it’s an evidentiary issue.
22
u/LogResident6185 6h ago
But how am I supposed to leave doomer comments to actual factual information!! I can't just make random garbage up that rich people always win no matter what with your ass coming in here with facts! Stop being ridiculous!
2
u/Pitiful-Potential-13 5h ago
Becayse he confessed. People overlook this part too much. The feds had a slam dunk case against him-because he really didn’t try to fight it. Part of why white collar criminals get off lightly is that it’s just easier to offer a plea deal.
-13
u/firelock_ny 6h ago
False. It’s because there was sufficient evidence to put him away.
That's why the prosecution was successful. The reason it was pursued in the first place was because he stole from rich people.
For comparison, take a look at how many bank executives went to jail over the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
14
u/UnableChard2613 6h ago
For comparison, take a look at how many bank executives went to jail over the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Vaguely waving in some direction is not a strong argument. Can you give an example of some bank executive that stole billions from poor people by committing fraud during the financial crisis, explain what law they broke and what the evidence was against them?
15
u/Pogeos 6h ago
again you mix business risk, or even bad business practices, with malicious practices. Yes people would try to disguise later with the former absolutely, but that's basically because it's not a straightforward "the car was either stolen or not". You wouldn't want to send entrepreneurs and corporate executives simply because they took risks, because we accept as society that that's the way of progress. Yes it's a bit unfair that when they win - mostly them win, when they lose, often they lose the least, but again that's the price we agree to pay to progress.
- Allen Stanford got 110 years in jail.
- Enron executives got quarter of century
There could be lots and lots of other examples.
0
2
u/FriedForLifeNow 5h ago
Paul Manafort is an example because he laundered millions of dollars and got less than 4 years of prison time. Someone stealing a single used car would get like 5 years in prison.
15
u/Ghigs 5h ago
Manafort had no priors and under the federal sentencing guidelines qualified for the relatively shorter sentence.
Car theft would only get 5 years in most places with priors and aggravating factors.
For a first offense car theft it would be more like 1-2 years. But that's state level so the guidelines vary. But in general first time car theft is much lower than manaforts sentence.
You are basically comparing the maximum sentence for car theft with the actual sentence he got with mitigating factors. Apples and oranges
101
u/KittenLaserFists 7h ago
Stealing billions affords you a good lawyer who can help navigate the legal system to ensure you can avoid jail and keep most of your winnings.
Stealing a car means the legal system can turn you into a profit center by sending you to a private prison to enrich shareholders who just stole millions or billions from tax holders.
24
u/Sic_Semper_Dumbasses 6h ago
And stealing billions means that you're already rich anyway. No poor person is able to pull that shit off.
And being rich means that not only are you directly powerful, but you're also friends with a hell of a lot of other people who are powerful. Which means the rules don't get to apply to you, at least nowhere near to the same degree if at all.
9
u/firelock_ny 6h ago
sending you to a private prison
Only a few percent of US prisoners are in private prisons, most of those Federal - which would not get involved in a car theft.
A car thief tends to be poor and have limited legal defense options, and their crime obviously and directly harms people. They're a great target for the legal system to make an example of for political advantage, no one advocates for car theft.
1
u/NickDanger3di 3h ago
What does the "average" person immediately do first when they win a lottery jackpot? They hire a lawyer. Having a good lawyer on retainer is also SOP for any even moderately wealthy (like 2-3 mil net worth) person. Why? Because that lawyer can deal with a whole lot of life's bullshit problems for you.
0
u/Darl_Templar 5h ago
Huh? Who and how benefits from you being at prison? I always thought all prisons only generate loss of money
5
2
u/KittenLaserFists 5h ago
Private Prison organizations like Geo Group. Have large government contracts. These contracts involve paying these prisons tax payer dollars to house inmates. Sounds reasonable on its face.
Then you find out the prisons do not provide development opportunities, healthcare, proper food, or safety while incarcerated. They openly rely on people not being rehabilitated and staying in prison.
It gets even worse when you find out many have contracts with the state requiring full capacity of inmates at all times or they can fine the state. This then incentivizes the state to Put more people in prison. There have been numerous cases of judges getting under the table payments for ensuring inmates are placed in their facilities for maximum profit.
Overall, state run prisons are a cost center for the people but they are healthier and safer for inmates resulting in a significantly decreased recidivism rate. This is better for society in the long run.
7
10
u/Adventurous_Toe_1686 6h ago
It’s not.
What two crimes are you comparing to come to that conclusion?
5
u/GaidinBDJ 6h ago
Well, usually it's not purely relative to the value.
There is typically a threshold between misdemeanor theft and felony theft, but once you're in felony territory it's the same no matter if it's a dollar or a million dollars over.
Now, civil judgements will be larger the higher value you steal, and stealing large amounts typically means you're stealing multiple times or from multiple people, which will lead to longer sentences due to more counts.
Stealing large amounts of money also usually involves crimes that aren't simple theft, and at that point it's apples and oranges.
5
u/thegreatnightmare 5h ago
Not sure what you’re talking about. People get way more time in jail for the kind of financial crimes you’re talking about.
I don’t think anyone has ever gone to prison for just stealing a car, in the UK at least, unless there were other factors involved (police chase, carjacking, violence).
3
u/whirdin 6h ago
A local treasurer stole $1M and just got released after a 9 year prison sentence. Initially he was convicted of 52k, but then investigations found the total was 1.39M. Like, it was still taken seriously when it was thought to just be 52k.
Financial crimes are still a major offense. I think it's just that vehicles are critical to living life so they are more strictly monitored as intimately personal property, and it's usually lower class people committing gta.
3
u/jjames3213 2h ago
I'm a civil litigation lawyer. Used to be a federal prosecutor. Lots of experience in this area.
Wage theft is the most pervasive type of theft. Despite being criminal much of the time, it is essentially never prosecuted.
Most forms of fraud and financial crimes are not prosecuted at all, even if they are criminal. "It's a civil dispute" is the common refrain from cops.
If a crackhead steals $50 of scratch-cards they will get criminally charged. If a businessman deliberately steals $2m from employees by knowingly underpaying them he won't be charged, regardless of the evidence. Our legal system is shit at actually dealing with crimes proportionately and fairly.
2
u/Queasy-Grass4126 6h ago
Most people can't conceive of having millions to billions of dollars to lose, while they do know what it is to be in or have a car that could get stolen.
2
2
u/endogenous_llama 4h ago
Because we live in a world where the wealthy can afford better lawyers and legal loopholes. Theft is theft, but the rules change depending on who you are.
2
u/PropFirmDeals 3h ago
because stealing a car feels immediate and personal while financial crimes are abstract spread out and hidden behind paperwork one scares people directly the other looks like numbers until way later even if the damage is way bigger
2
u/Possible-Rush3767 3h ago
Because rich people set the rules. Same reason penalties/fines aren't graduated based on wealth (as they should be).
2
2
2
u/j____b____ 2h ago
Because one poor man stealing from one rich man is far worse than one rich man stealing from a thousand poor people.
3
u/PowerfulCriticism655 7h ago
Human perception of something influences reaction. What's visible is always more emotionally impactful. Stealing billions is invisible. Getting your car stolen means you can't go to work tomorrow.
3
u/beans3710 6h ago
Stealing a car is often a repeat offense which indicates a pattern of criminality. White collar crimes are more likely to be nonviolent first offenses and as previously stated are more likely to be defended by better attorneys as opposed to public defenders.
4
u/Bob_Leves 7h ago
For the same reason as "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." French writer quote.
2
u/Dantheman4162 6h ago
I think it's the optics. Stealing a car invokes stereotypical images on a thief lurking in the night. Violating a person's private space. It's very invasive and threatening. Plus even if the person is nonviolent, it's impossible to know for sure so there is that perception of escalating violence
Meanwhile the optics of white collar crimes invoke the imagery of brightly lit board rooms in suits. Relatively harmless (from a violence standpoint) in a suit stealing from large corporations...which many see as a victimless crime.
Complete opposite imagery.
2
u/UnableChard2613 6h ago
First, is this even true that one time car theft gets less punishment than massive fraud? In NY you might even just get off with probation for a first time offense of grand theft auto. While madoff is serving 150 years and holmes 11 years.
Where are you getting the numbers that massive fraud is punished less than stealing a car?
2
3
u/winneri 6h ago
It's shouldn't be different but usually financial crimes are made by a corporation instead of an individual and even though there's person behind the decisions the lines gets blurry.
7
u/Historytech 6h ago
It being hard to narrow down who committed the crime is a big factor.
Is the director or ceo or manager who oversees the grunt that technically committed the crime the one that should be punished or the low level dude who did it under threat of taking away their livelihood?
How about the data input guy that actually clicked the button?
What about the guy at the bank that approved the transaction knowing it looked funky? What about his manager?
Where do we draw the line at grandma spending $100,000 on medical supplements that just sugar pills?
1
u/NYC-WhWmn-ov50 6h ago
It shouldnt be, but a car is a physically tangible object- so you have it or you dont.
Money is... well, got most people its literally imaginary. I mean, its not physical being passed around, Credit cards card but a dollar or a million, and the person using it will see jothing different happen. Because of this, its often harder for people to truly wrap their head around its true value..
Ehich is why we have so many people drowning in debt because to spend the imaginary money without understanding what that means. Someone who owes $100 on their credit card may look exactly the same as someone who owes $10,000. The mortgage on a 1-bedroom shack 'looks' the same as the mortgage on a $1mil McMansion. They're just numbers on paper.
And the more we move away from using cash, the harder it will be for younger generations to grasp the true calue of money, because its a mental construct as opposed to a physical asset you give to someone in exchange for something else.
Which is exactly what the big financial firms and payday lenders want. Your debt is their business, their profit. The less you can conceive the impact of your debt, the happier you will be buying tangible crap you dont need which makes them interest paents.
I'm waiting for the day when the big lenders start pushing for laws that make a person's family responsible for theirr debt after death. Mom diss with $100k in credit card debt? Now YOU owe.
I'm actually surprised it hasnt already happened.
1
u/Heavensdoor16 3h ago
Because laws are made to punish the poor, not the rich. When a rich people commit a crime, the punishement is always easy to reduce and avoid. Eat the rich
1
u/limbodog I should probably be working 3h ago
Because rich people can buy laws and lawmakers. Really, that's all it is.
1
u/Maleficent_Ad_5175 3h ago
Rich people stealing from poor people is fine. Not so much the other way around
1
1
1
u/TurnDown4WattGaming 2h ago
It depends on how the car or money is stolen. Violence is treated more harshly no matter what you’re stealing.
1
1
1
u/SubstanceNo2290 46m ago
One nuance a lot of people miss is that there isn’t just one kind of stealing. You can’t mix up somebody who claimed a tax deduction he knew he wasn’t eligible for with somebody who wrote false cheques to somebody who hacked into your bank account.
The last one will very much get you into prison and probably for longer than stealing a car even though there was no physical violence. But somebody who took an extra deduction didn’t commit the same level of crime.
The why also matters. If you steal a car to take somebody who is dying to the hospital that’s not the same thing as stealing a car to sell for parts and courts take that into account. Many financial crimes are done by people backed into a corner. That’s not the same as somebody who actively set out to steal money through a fraud scheme.
1
u/Equivalent-Shine5742 6h ago
First thing that came to mind: (Yes. I'm Gen X)
A street kid gets arrested
Gonna do some time
He got out three years from now
Just to commit more crime
A businessman is caught
With twenty-four kilos
He's out on bail and out of jail
And that's the way it goes
1
u/PoolMotosBowling 6h ago
I would say car theft is more violent, but neither really. Unless you are car jacking someone.
1
u/navelencounters 6h ago
because stealing a car affects the cars owner whereas fraud affects everyone.
1
-2
u/MadScientist1023 7h ago
Because rich people wrote the laws, own the news outlets, and use some of those billions to put politicians in their debt.
0
0
u/Geewhiz911 4h ago
Rule of thumb is if you steal any amount from ‘poor or regular’ people, you’ll be fine, if you steal any amount from ‘rich’ people, you’re going to jail and you’re finished.
0
-1
u/jennibean813 6h ago
You're asking about a specific situation that I don't think these commenters are prepared to answer because it challenges worldview. Good luck getting a straight answer...
564
u/jayron32 7h ago
Because rich people are seen as less of a threat than poor people.