@Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social While true, the actual real stories do explain the obvious disparity.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/homeless-man-vs-corporate-thief/

@jasonetheridge @Radical_EgoCom Not sure this is the defence you wanted. It gives more details but the problem is still there.

@lauxmyth @Radical_EgoCom@kolektiva.social I don't deny the obvious disparity. The homeless guy's act was a clearly defined crime with a minimum three year sentence. He went through all the motions of robbing a bank, including terrorising a bank teller into handing over cash, even if he only took a single note. He could just as easily (and justifiably) been shot by security or the police.

The corporate aided and abetted an existing fraud, and got a plea deal by cooperating with investigators. Yes, it's still a crime, but a non-violent one. Lots of factors reduce the sentence.

Is it fair? Each case has to be taken on its own merits. In the homeless guy's case, he committed a very real offence, even if he wasn't serious. A terrible error of judgement. Should the judge have been lenient? On the surface, yes (not gone up to 15 years from the minimum 3 etc), but who knows what other factors there were.