united-states fraud banking shareholders
Can the Feds not put Bank Executives (or their employees) in Prison for Fraud?
<p>I see stories such as this one quoted below where a <a href="http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/wells-fargo-exec-who-headed-phony-accounts-unit-collected-dollar125-million/ar-AAiN0iA?li=BBnb7Kz" rel="nofollow">Wells Fargo exec who headed phony accounts unit collected $125 million</a>. </p>

<p>Basically the notion is that big fat cat bankers can swindle people out of BIG money and have absolutely no consequences, and they actually still benefit from defrauding others and be set for the rest of their lives. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>On Thursday, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $185 million, <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/09/08/wells-fargo-credit-card/" rel="nofollow">including the
  largest penalty ever imposed by the Consumer Financial Protection
  Bureau, to settle claims that that it defrauded its customers</a>. <strong>The
  bank’s shareholders will ultimately have to swallow the cost of that
  settlement.</strong></p>
  
  <p><strong>Tolstedt, however, is walking away from Wells Fargo with a very full
  bank account</strong>--and praise. In the July announcement of her exit, which
  made no mention of the soon-to-be-settled case, Well Fargo’s CEO John
  Stumpf said Tolstedt had been one of the bank’s most important leaders
  and “a standard-bearer of our culture” and “a champion for our
  customers.”</p>
  
  <p>In a statement following the settlement, Wells Fargo said, “Wells
  Fargo reached these agreements consistent with our commitment to
  customers and in the interest of putting this matter behind us. <strong>Wells
  Fargo is committed to putting our customers' interests first 100% of
  the time</strong>, and we regret and take responsibility for any instances
  where customers may have received a product that they did not
  request.”</p>
  
  <p>Shortly after the financial crisis, big banks in the nation, including
  Wells Fargo, <strong>promised that their top bankers would not be able to keep
  large paydays if it was found that those rewards were gained through
  harmful conduct.</strong> It was supposed to be the stick to the carrot of Wall
  Street bonuses. But the latest example of fraud at Wells Fargo shows
  that the big banks are unwilling to wield those sticks, especially
  when it comes to their top executives</p>
  
  <p><sub><a href="http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/wells-fargo-exec-who-headed-phony-accounts-unit-collected-dollar125-million/ar-AAiN0iA?li=BBnb7Kz" rel="nofollow">source</a></sub></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's quite obvious leaving decisions like this up to the companies that are found in violation of a federal regulation or fraud does not work to deter the fraudulent activity from occurring so to <strong>my question(s):</strong> </p>

<ul>
<li>Can the feds not charge anyone from this company with a crime that
has "prison time" or "felony" consequences?</li>
<li>Do bankers ever go to prison in America for fraud of this amount (fraud is fraud)?</li>
<li>If the shareholders are paying for most of this settlement, then how can this not be fraud to the shareholders or the correlated stock (e.g. some disclosure when you buy the stock that you may have foot the bills for fraudulence with their employees)?</li>
</ul>

<p>Maybe there is a simple answer to this that could clarify which I could've found on my own with a little research, but I'm interesting more in what attorney's, or other legal professional's, or the legal enthusiast's more than doing my own research on the topic.</p>

<p>Prosecutors have discretion to not bring charges. Wayte v. United States 470 U.S. 598 (1985), Bordenkircher v. Hayes 434 U.S. 357 (1978)</p>

<p>The Department of Justice <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/holder-memo-charging-sentencing.pdf">says</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The reasoned exercise of prosecutorial discretion is essential to the fair, effective, and
  even-handed administration of the federal criminal laws. Decisions about whether to initiate
  charges, what charges and enhancements to pursue, when to accept a negotiated plea, and how to
  advocate at sentencing, are among the most fundamental duties of federal prosecutors.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution">US Attorney's Manual</a> says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The prosecutor's broad discretion in such areas as initiating or foregoing prosecutions, selecting or recommending specific charges, and terminating prosecutions by accepting guilty pleas has been recognized on numerous occasions by the courts. See, e.g., Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962); Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1967); Powell v. Ratzenbach, 359 F.2d 234 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 906 (1966). This discretion exists by virtue of his/her status as a member of the Executive Branch, which is charged under the Constitution with ensuring that the laws of the United States be "faithfully executed."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As of April 28, 2016, <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/companies/bankers-prison/">35 bankers had been sent to prison</a> for fraud and other financial crimes relating to the 2008-and-onward financial crisis.</p>
