Judge Jed Rakoff, who took a stand against what he saw as a sweetheart deal between the SEC and Bank of America, has started something of a trend. A judge recently declined to approve a $75 million settlement between Citi and the SEC, saying she needed more information.

Now comes news that Judge Emmet Sullivan has issues with a deal calling for Barclays to pay $298 million to settle criminal charges of illegal dealings with Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Myanmar. According to Reuters, the judge wants to know why the government did not indict any individuals from Barclays or foreign banks.

This sort of skepticism is welcome, as it adds to the detail and color around settlements that often seem opaque. These settlements often come across as mere wrist taps. Especially when it comes to financial services, the process just seems too cozy and porous to hold anyone really accountable for crimes.

At a minimum, the judge wants more rationale and justification. My guess is that a deal will soon be approved, but more judges may want to make statements along these lines.

For more:
- here's the article

Related Articles:
Judge Rakoff accepts Bank of America-SEC deal
Barclays launches online game aimed at teenagers
Barclays to settle sanctions case; Will AIG ever repay taxpayers
Goldman Sachs accused of stealing data