Aug. 24, 2010 (United Press International) -- The public may have the final say on how tough U.S. courts get on banks that break the law, a University of Chicago law professor said.
Federal judges have become increasingly vocal about disagreeing with deals prosecutors make with banks.
"The court is trying to make it public that the government may be cutting cozy deals, because it is the public that ultimately controls the executive branch," The New York times quoted Professor Todd Henderson as saying.
Two judges at the Federal District Court in Washington last week balked at signing off on deals prosecutors made with banks.
In separate hearings, Judge Emmet Sullivan asked, "Why isn't the government getting tough with banks?"
This was a day after Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle reacted to a deal struck with Citigroup (NYSE:C) by asking rhetorically, "Why would I find this fair and reasonable?"
Last year federal Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan chastised a Securities and Exchange Commission attorney for proposing what he considered a small monetary fine on Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) that did not hold individual executives accountable for the bank's withholding information from shareholders when it purchased Merrill Lynch.
"The courts are staking out a role that frankly we seem to need," said University of Pennsylvania law Professor Jill Fisch.
