Say their names
By Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project, for the Dirt Diggers Digest
Regulatory agencies and prosecutors seek to punish misbehaving corporations in the hope they will change their practices and obey the rules. That happens occasionally, but all too often corporate offenders go on to break the law again, sometimes repeatedly.
The prevalence of such recidivism is one of the main conclusions
that arises from the data on enforcement actions—numbering more than 600,000—my
colleagues and I have collected in Violation Tracker.
Now one of the more aggressive federal regulators is planning to
assemble an official resource on rogue corporations. The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau just announced it
will create a registry of companies that have broken consumer protection laws
and that are subject to court orders regarding their ongoing behavior.
“Too often, financial firms treat penalties for illegal activity as the cost of doing business,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “The CFPB’s new rule will help law enforcement across the country detect and stop repeat offenders.”
I am happy to report that Violation Tracker played a role in the
agency’s development of the registry. As noted on page 405 of the lengthy description of
the plan, CFPB made use of data from Violation Tracker to estimate how many
companies might be affected.
Given that CFPB’s registry will cover only nonbank consumer
finance companies, its scope will be much narrower than that of Violation
Tracker, which covers all kinds of corporations, large and small. Yet it is
important for there to be official compilations, since they will hopefully
provide more pressure on bad actors.
It would be good if the CFPB’s move inspires the Justice
Department to do more to respond to calls from members of
Congress and corporate
accountability advocates to create a comprehensive database on
corporate crime.
Last year, DOJ created a page of its website called Corporate Crime Case Database, which initially contained only about a dozen items but was described as being “still in the process of being populated.”
It’s now
been about 12 months since the site went up, but that process is proceeding at
a glacial pace. The page currently contains all of 85 case summaries, making it
far from a comprehensive database.
It is no surprise that DOJ seems reluctant to do more to
highlight its criminal enforcement, given that the department has been
emphasizing leniency rather than aggressive prosecution of corporate
miscreants. DOJ continues to allow large corporations to escape from criminal
investigations with a deferred or non-prosecution agreement under which the
company pays a penalty but does not need to plead guilty.
In theory, companies which fail to change their behavior would
be subject to a real prosecution in the future, but there are many cases in
which one leniency agreement is followed by nothing more than another leniency
agreement.
Sometimes DOJ employs another device known as a declination in
which the possibility of a prosecution is completely taken off the table. This
deal was recently offered to
a company called Proterial (formerly known as Hitachi Cable), which
misrepresented to customers that the motorcycle brake hose assemblies it sold
met federal safety performance standards.
The problem was not that the company failed to test the
assemblies. It did the tests but lied to customers about the results, claiming
that the assemblies had passed when in fact they had failed. A page on
the DOJ website lists 20 declinations, but there may be more that are not
disclosed.
When it comes to corporate crime, DOJ needs to engage in more
aggressive prosecutions and make sure the public knows about them.