"Why isn't the government getting tough with banks?" It's a question a lot  of people have been asking, fairly or not. But when a sitting U.S. federal district court judge asks the question, it takes on deeper meaning.

Judge Emmet Sullivan asked it in regard to the SEC's settlement with Barclays over charges of illegally helping customers in Iran, Cuba and other sanctioned nations move more than $500 million into the United States.

Before that, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle refused to sign off on a deal between prosecutors and Citigroup.

These judges may have been inspired to some degree by Judge Jed Rakoff, who got a lot of press for initially rejecting the SEC's settlement with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. He ultimately approved a deal that carried a much larger fine.

One issue in all of this, as we've noted before, is that individuals have not been prosecuted, and that rankles bank critics, who generally applaud the efforts to take a harder line against banks. It does seem that prosecutors often play it safe, going for statistics, padding wins and only the occasional bold move--which the Goldman Sachs case qualifies as.

For more:
- here's the article

Related Articles:
Barclays settlement put on hold by judge
Citi settlement raises issue: Why shareholders must pay
The big omission in the Goldman Sachs-SEC settlement?
What's next for the SEC's Structured and New Products Unit