I've read the comments and I am a bit surprised: my views are a bit more lenient and tolerant. I believe that financial crimes should cause FINANCIAL consequences/punishment. FFS, take all his money, ban him from doing business for life etc but I think 25 years in jail is an overkill. Just my subjective opinion.
my views are also that rapists and murders should get life that means life.. and those crimes should be hardened and made harsher first..
and then financial crimes dealt with less harshness below that.. but..
but when financial crimes then cause physical harm(people commit suicide due to losses caused by others) then added charges of manslaughter should be added to a financial crime and sentenced accordingly..
. but even without single suicide/death.. many people would have individually filed for damages of mental injury(stress, depression) which cumulatively would have added up to decades/centuries.. which would also then be fair..
and so when you read sentencing guidelines that have different timescale categories about numbers of victims, amount of value victimised.. you start to appreciate that they TRY to find a fair balance..
what i dislike is the whole concurrent policy vs consecutive or where "life" no longer means life
if he had 7 charges totalling 108 years.. that should be the end sentance