Thanks for the definition

How do you get away with defending tax fraud to the point where the fine is pointless? Does the SEC not get to keep the winnings to use for their future cases so they can hire a ton of lawyers? I guess the real problem is why are judges (presumably everywhere?) lettings companies and organizations get away with this or is there a specific set of judges that only handle SEC cases? Perhaps the first step to getting bigger fines is to just keep increasing fines across the board? Do they need to campaign to judges to remind them that financial crime is bad? How hard is it for anyone to understand that a fine is meaningless unless it hurts, no matter how big the number is? Do you really need more lawyers to prove that basic point? I guess you guys are stuck in a pretty crappy system, but then again I'm sure most places are :/

I guess it just seems strange that if their job is to essentially take wrong-doers to court and win loads of money, even if those winnings are relatively small compared to what they should be, they would still both have a lot of lawyers on staff and a lot of money coming in (regardless of funding from the government) to pay for those lawyers and the more they fine, the more money they'd have to hire more lawyers? And they have no shortage of cases with no competitors? I get they are probably bogged down in infinite politically and bureaucratic BS, but still, seems like they should have an easy path to winning without asking for funding from anyone.