I'm not disagreeing with you, but your last sentence isn't correct.
Last year, the former head of the bank’s retail operation was sentenced to three years of probation, while the bank’s former CEO was banned from the industry.
I think technically op may be correct, as being banned from an industry is different from the business firing them. And probation isn't jail time
Sorry to come with "um, ackshuslly" but they didn't ask if they were convicted of a crime. The question was "were they jailed? And according to your post, they were not.
True. I was referring more to the first part about being fired. After rereading it, the two weren't "fired". Although 3 years of probation isn't nothing, it's a far cry from what many feel should have been done. The CEO was banned from the industry, which is something.
I'd really be curious to know if the punishment of the CEO & "head of retail operations" provided relief to the people affected by their crime AND was substantial enough to change their behavior.I feel that those items are what the sentencing should be about.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but your last sentence isn't correct.
I think technically op may be correct, as being banned from an industry is different from the business firing them. And probation isn't jail time
Sorry to come with "um, ackshuslly" but they didn't ask if they were convicted of a crime. The question was "were they jailed? And according to your post, they were not.
True. I was referring more to the first part about being fired. After rereading it, the two weren't "fired". Although 3 years of probation isn't nothing, it's a far cry from what many feel should have been done. The CEO was banned from the industry, which is something.
I'd really be curious to know if the punishment of the CEO & "head of retail operations" provided relief to the people affected by their crime AND was substantial enough to change their behavior.I feel that those items are what the sentencing should be about.