Agreed that it is hard to set a proper level of punishment for offending corporations and executives. As Joe Murphy points out, the shareholders pay the fine and yet the share price goes up - is the fine a punishment or not? Disbarment often means a death penalty for a company - and to what end? The company dissolves, the clients migrate to surviving competitors, and the competitors hire the sanctioned company's executives to handle the new business. Criminal cases against execs are often difficult to assess. The individuals involved in the crime are not within the jurisidiction, and the individuals within the jurisidiction have no direct, personal involvement (and therefore no liability) in the crime. We don't incarcerate people for negligent supervision of business affairs.
But I don't share the cynicism. I agree it would be better to have more nuanced punishments, but that doesn't mean the system is working, just that it could work better. First, these settlements are real punishments, not a free pass. There is a lot of concern (and a growing concern) among business executives to avoid these fines. And the corporate monitor positions (which were abused in years past) are now a sensitive issue for DOJ, and the monitorships I am familiar with have real teeth, real expenses for the company, real checks to ensure ongoing compliance. Second, the most culpable companies, the repeat offenders, will suffer increasing pusinshments. The amount of the fines are increasing. And a la Andersen, the repeat offenders will eventually be prosecuted criminally. The problem arises because criminal prosecution of corproations leads to one of two extremes - corporate death penalties or complete exoneration. Neither the executives nor the DOJ attorneys have incentives to pursue these extremes. So, they seek a middle ground, which currently is this agreed civil settlement.