Oh, I read the thread. The problem with his logic is that it leads to the conclusion of systemic importance; it's the same argument as too big to fail, in a different guise. If the evidence truly is enough to convict in court, isn't it antithetical to the rule of law not to convict, and accept settlements instead?
Size of organizations involved was never mentioned, so I really don't see how it's related to "too big to fail".
His logic was completely different, and pretty straightforward: that anti-laundering legislation first threw mens rea out, and then ended up in a state where everybody is guilty be default.
