General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJamie Dimon: It Would "Be Criminal To Subject Our Company" To A Trial
Jamie Dimon: It Would "Be Criminal To Subject Our Company" To A Trial
By Nicole Belle January 25, 2014 11:40 pm
23Share0 36Share1 101
It's not enough to be rewarded for financial malfeasance, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jpmorgan-chase-ceo-jamie-dimon-pay-raise/story?id=21651249 Jamie Dimon wants everyone to know to hold him accountable for it would be...in a word, criminal.
....................Jamie Dimon told an audience of his fellow elites in Davos, Switzerland that it would have been "criminal" to subject JPMorgan Chase to a trial.
Dimon said JPMorgan had "two really bad options" in choosing to settle or fight the cases. Going to court could have taken three or four years and the outcome could have been worse, he said.
"It would really hurt this company and that would have been criminal for me to subject our company to those kinds of issues," Dimon said.
Personally, I think that paycheck is criminal. Clearly, we don't see eye to eye on the notion of personal and fiscal responsibility. I'm proud to say that Elizabeth Warren sees it the same way I do:
https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethWarren/posts/10103049130899056?stream_ref=10
the rest:
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/01/jamie-dimon-it-would-be-criminal-subject
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)mucifer
(23,537 posts)some people are above the law.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)rustydog
(9,186 posts)right?
jsr
(7,712 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)make a great President.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Corporate officers are legally obligated to take as much as possible with no consideration for how much it hurts the nation.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)The quote is bad enough, theres no need to subtract words to change the meaning. The "for me" portion of it is very important.
I dont for a moment think he is taking personal responsibility, but that one quote at least, does not say he thinks its criminal of the government to prosecute him. It says that he decided it would be more expensive for JPM to go to trial when he could settle the case out of court. It is informative that more expensive to the company = Criminal. And it explains why so many companies are willing to bend or break rules regarding safety and common sense in order to save a few cents.
Warrens page reflects that understanding as well, so I'm pretty sure im not misunderstanding this one.
riqster
(13,986 posts)yourout
(7,527 posts)dickthegrouch
(3,173 posts)Even using the Clinton definition of "Is"
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)Bloody their noses a few times and they will stop their bad behavior. If there is a very real possibility for going to prison for the same conduct that they only pay fines for now, the bad conduct would become very rare. The problem is that the Regulators can kiss that kushy, private sector job goodbye if they do go after them!
JCMach1
(27,556 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Jamie Dimon thinks that he and his company are God. He thinks that they decide the fate of the world. We don't need Jamie Dimon or JPMorgan Chase. What we need is ethical businesses and businessmen.
But still Jamie Dimon took the responsibility for settling the case against JPMorgan. He didn't say "it" would be criminal for the government to take the company to trial. He said "it" would be criminal for him, for Jamie Dimon, to allow the company to go to trial. He was explaining why he settled.
I'm not a fan of Jamie Dimon, but let's be fair and honest in reading his statement.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They live way, way above any law that affects us working stiffs. They are allowed to get away with ruining countless lives and displacing unknown amounts of families on the streets.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)of societies whereas maybe at one time they helped build society. I am not talking about your local bank, I am talking about these huge out of control financial institutions that make and break thousands of FAMILIES a day.
If their crimes are not considered huge moral-ethical issues by governments, then the people of those nations should expect more personal tragedy at the hands of the 1%.
No regulations or oversight on a uber wealthy bank robber means plenty of empty banks and mad customers.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Worked for Iceland.
lsewpershad
(2,620 posts)like a challenge to Obama and Holder.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)...as the writer quoted in the OP.
This writer mis-characterized what Dimon actually said "It would really hurt this company and that would have been criminal for me to subject our company to those kinds of issues,". Big difference.
Just because you don't like, or even hate someone, doesn't mean it's ok to lie about what they say.
Elizabeth Warren managed to appropriately mock Jamie Dimon w/o lying about what he said: "It would be really costly, he says. Well, duh. ".
SamKnause
(13,101 posts)There should be a class action lawsuit filed against these thieves.
Our government should be held accountable for bailing these thieves out and choosing not to prosecute.
When those who make the laws ignore the laws, there is no law.
From this point on they know they can get away with anything and the government will bail them out.
Their power has not been reined in.
They are bigger than they were before the crash.
Our government is acting against the best interest of we the people.
The citizens is this country should be enraged at the injustices being perpetrated on the population.
Cha
(297,184 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Throw Legs Dimon in the slammer and then throw the key in the Mariana Trench.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Which, having fiduciary responsibility as a corporate officer, that might technically be true, but it would be hard to prove he DIDN'T pump his cronies in the regulatory apparatus for a pass, and a slap on the wrist settlement.
And that, is precisely what is wrong with the financial system.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)I'm certainly not a fan of Dimon, but I don't think he is saying that it would be "criminal" to hold him accountable. He's talking about the options he faced as a company president and CEO, which were to either agree to settle or to go to trial. He's saying that it would have been "criminal" for him, as President and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, to choose to go to trial rather than to settle. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, his first legal responsibility is to protect shareholder interests. I think he is saying that choosing to go to trial, with all of the risks, media coverage, etc. that would entail, would be 'criminal' insofar as it would potentially be more harmful to the well-being of his organization, and also to the interests of the shareholders of that organization.