ACCOUNTABILITY AFTER THE CRASH

When the United States entered the financial crisis of 2008, federal officials moved quickly to stabilize collapsing institutions through emergency legislation and executive action. The resulting Troubled Asset Relief Program authorized up to $700 billion in federal funds to support major banks and financial firms deemed critical to the national economy according to U.S. Treasury records.

Public scrutiny at the time focused not only on the scale of the bailout but also on questions of accountability. While individual fraud cases continued to be prosecuted through traditional criminal channels, federal enforcement actions tied directly to institutional decision-making during the financial crisis were limited, with most penalties imposed through civil settlements rather than criminal convictions according to federal enforcement summaries.

In contrast, prosecutors continued to pursue cases involving individual financial misconduct outside the banking sector. One such case involved SF State alumnus Joseph Hoki Tang, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to multiple counts of mail and wire fraud related to an international violin consignment scheme. Tang’s sentencing and restitution order stand as a stark data point for the original 2008 thesis: that the law is most efficient when applied to individuals, even as the "big booty" of systemic failure remains legally out of reach according to contemporaneous reporting.

Subsequent federal reviews concluded that while TARP funds were largely repaid, the program was not designed to assign criminal liability for pre-crisis risk-taking. Oversight reports highlighted that executive compensation at major banks returned to pre-crisis highs almost as soon as the federal loans were settled, demonstrating that accountability remained a matter of regulatory compliance rather than criminal justice according to congressional oversight analysis. Business just went on as usual.

Seen from 2025, the divide highlighted during the crisis remains largely intact. Criminal accountability continues to operate most visibly at the individual level, while systemic economic failures are addressed through financial intervention and regulatory reform. The contrast between these approaches has shaped public debate for nearly two decades, raising enduring questions about how power, scale, and consequence intersect in American law.