Law Commons^™

Crossing The Fault Line In Corporate Criminal Law, Amy Sepinwall

Amy J. Sepinwall

Why is it that so few bankers have been prosecuted and punished in the wake of the financial meltdown? Pundits are quick to point to inadequate funding for addressing financial crime or, more cynically, the revolving door between government regulatory agencies and Wall Street. But the ultimate answer may be at once more banal and more dispiriting, lying as it does at the very foundations of our criminal law.

The conception of responsibility underpinning much of our criminal law contemplates the individual in isolation from others. As a result, our criminal law has tremendous difficulty tracking culpability in organizational contexts. …

Responsibility, Repair And Redistribution In The Wake Of The Financial Crisis, Amy Sepinwall

Amy J. Sepinwall

The point of departure for this paper is a claim about widespread shared responsibility for the financial crisis and the bailout it necessitated. We are inclined to decry Wall Street’s villainy, all the while conveniently overlooking our own role in precipitating the crisis. But individuals, we now know, prefer to spend rather than save and, as a result, require the kind of financial alchemy that can transform one’s house into a virtual ATM, or one’s exceedingly modest savings into a fiscal cushion that can sustain a long, comfortable retirement. Risk, then, is the inevitable price of our preferences for leisure …

Righting Others' Wrongs: A Critical Analysis Of Clawback Suits In The Wake Of Madoff-Type Ponzi Schemes And Other Financial Frauds, Amy Sepinwall

Amy J. Sepinwall

In a typical Ponzi scheme, early investors earn “profits” not through any legitimate investment activity on the part of the Ponzi scheme operator; instead the operator simply transfers money that later investors deposit to the earlier investors who seek redemptions. As such, when the scheme goes bust, as it must, the Ponzi scheme operator will not have enough money to cover all of the investors’ deposits, let alone the earnings on those deposits that the investors thought they were owed. Should the scheme’s winners – i.e., those who withdrew more money than they deposited – be compelled to return their …