What this means is that your incentives are to take cases that are high-profile one-offs. Find the discrete cases. Let’s say you have to choose between investigating possible manipulation of derivatives contracts at all major investment banks and an insider trading case against the manager of a big hedge fund. Your chief will say: Both are vital! But the former will ensnare you in a years-long investigation. You don’t know if there was a crime committed. And even if there was, the evidence will be dry and old. Explaining it to a jury will be impossible.
The insider trading case, by contrast, is easy to understand. You might have damning records made by the perps. You can probably get a jury to see things your way. You’ll garner kudos from your boss. The Wall Street Journal will do one of those stipple-dot drawings of you. Business Insider will put you on one of those lists of the most important people in American business.
via Corporate Prosecutors and Their Invisible Chains | The Harvard Law Record
