Corporate antitrust violations once carried no prison risk for gentlemen

Evidence

The corporations assumed that their antitrust violations would be handled in the customary, lenient way as “a gentleman’s misdemeanor—and a gentleman was never sent to jail for violating the antitrust law” (Herling, 1962). They further assumed that they would settle on a plea of no contest ( nolo contendere), neither admitting nor disputing the charges against them, and pay a token fine. However, much to their chagrin, they had to deal with Robert A. Bicks, acting U.S. assistant attorney general in charge of the litigation. He had a reputation as a highly knowledgeable, aggressive prosecutor who was reluctant to use the nolo plea on the grounds that it disrespected the law and the public’s desire for justice. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1403 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Corporate elites presumed antitrust law was unenforceable against gentlemen. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1403; Fining corporations without prosecuting executives hardened into a gentleman’s agreement; Executives escaped penalties while managers bore punishment in the antitrust conspiracy (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Corporate elites presumed antitrust law was unenforceable against gentlemen. #expands (0.92) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1403