Today, we delve into the captivating world of white-collar crime to pose a question that almost no one is asking. This is not your typical true crime story, but rather one individual’s staggering fall from the C-suite to a prison cell. In this episode, we explore the best ways to punish white-collar crimes and debate whether or not jail is an appropriate or effective solution. Here to contribute his expertise is Fordham Law Professor and resident corporate law expert, Richard Squire. He joins us to share his perspective on the high-profile case of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who was once lauded as a genius and a leader in the world of cryptocurrency, before being sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding customers and investors. Tune in to discover if the criminal justice system's four purposes are met by imprisoning white-collar criminals, the impact of reputational damage, potential alternatives to jail time, and insights into the sometimes severe penalties for insider trading. You’ll also learn about the political incentives for prosecuting white-collar crimes, particularly in emerging industries like crypto, and the conflicts of interest that lawyers should be aware of in these cases. This thought-provoking conversation is packed with valuable insights into corporate law and the ethical challenges of the business world, so be sure not to miss it!

Key Points From This Episode:

• Examples and statistics of the type of white-collar crimes we discuss in this episode.
• An exploration of the best ways to punish those who commit financial crimes.
• The case of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and FTX: a quick refresher on the details.
• Four purposes of the criminal justice system and whether they apply to SBF’s case.
• What constitutes “deliberate intent to deceive” in a fraud case; why it’s so difficult to prove.
• The strength of the case against SBF and questions regarding his long jail sentence.
• Details of the bankruptcy proceedings amidst SBF's legal battles: how this impacted their legal strategy and public perception of accountability.
• Whether or not imprisoning white-collar criminals serves the purposes of criminal justice.
• Pros and cons of the incapacitation that accompanies a prison sentence.
• Political motivations for prosecuting white-collar crimes, like insider trading, especially in emerging industries like cryptocurrency.
• A definition of insider trading and some better-known examples of it.
• Punishment for insider trading: is jail time appropriate or necessary?
• How wealth and public perception contribute to the severity with which a white-collar criminal is punished.
• Alternatives for punishing financial crimes, and when jail time is appropriate.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Richard Squire

Richard Squire on LinkedIn

United States v. Samuel Bankman-Fried

United States v. Matthew Kluger

Raj Rajaratnam Insider Trading Conviction

'Inside Insider Trading with Stephen Fishbein'

Amy Martella

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Dig in to the most compelling business law issues of the moment with host Amy Martella, the Executive Director of the Corporate Law Center at Fordham University School of Law. Bite-Sized Business Law tackles big issues in small doses through interviews with corporate attorneys, industry experts, public figures, and business law scholars. Stay informed and gain deeper understanding with invaluable insight on everything from financial meltdowns to emerging market trends. No issue is too big for Bite-Sized Business Law.

Is litigation funding driving the next big wave of mass tort cases and if so, what incentives does that create? Samir Parikh and Emily Siegel join the podcast today to help us explore the $15 billion litigation finance industry. Samir, a professor of corporate and bankruptcy law at Wake Forest Law, discusses the opaque nature of some financiers and their influence on mass tort litigation, often prioritizing profit over justice. Emily shares her perspective as a senior reporter at Bloomberg Law, highlighting the growing role of key players driving opaque capital – like sanctioned Russian actors operating as hedge funds – and the potential risks involved, including national security concerns. As financiers increasingly view mass tort disputes through the prism of an asset sale, they inevitably reshape the legal landscape, trigger ethical dilemmas for attorneys, and risk flooding the system with non-meritorious claims. Despite the controversies, litigation finance can level the playing field, offering a lifeline to claimants with legitimate cases. But as more money flows into mass tort disputes, less focus is placed on justice for victims. Tune in to explore the complexities and implications of litigation funding in mass torts and find out why transparency and regulation are more crucial than ever.

Key Points From This Episode:

• How litigation funding is driving mass tort cases.
• Introducing today’s guests, Samir Parikh and Emily Siegel.
• Key players driving opaque capital, including highly aggressive private equity firms.
• Samir's explanation of opaque capital financiers' profit motives.
• Why many modern tort cases more closely resemble asset sales than litigation.
• The risks that various parties face in mass tort litigation when it is funded by opaque capital.
• Emily’s findings on how Russian billionaires are avoiding sanctions by funding lawsuits.
• Why a lack of reporting requirements for funding litigation could pose a national security risk.
• Key questions raised by the Johnson & Johnson mass tort case and the potential of a future litigation regarding “forever chemicals.”
• The Daubert Standard in mass tort claims and the impact it has on funder decisions.
• Why mass torts are particularly attractive to litigation financiers.
• Ethical obligations in mass tort cases and how the attorney-client relationship is at risk.
• The impact of litigation funding on corporate defendants.
• A reminder that many legitimate financiers do a lot of good and the value that they add.
• How legitimate litigation financiers help meritorious claimants gain access to justice.
• The biggest risks posed by the new Arizona state law regarding mass tort cases.
• An overview of non-meritorious claims threatening system integrity.
• Why robust regulations and disclosures are necessary.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Samir Parikh

Samir Parikh on LinkedIn

Emily Siegel on LinkedIn
Bite-Sized Business Law Episode 30: The Opaque Capital Fueling Mass Tort Litigation

‘Opaque Capital and Mass Tort Financing’
'Putin’s Billionaires Dodge Sanctions by Financing Lawsuits (1)

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center