This isn't necessarily true in the general case, let alone in this specific case.
In the general case, some countries calculate fines according to the criminal's income for this very reason.
In this specific case, fines or, in the case of a civil lawsuit, damages in excess of the amount of money the person illegitimately gained would be sufficient.
Fines as a percentage of income do not solve the problem. If I'm a poor person living paycheck to paycheck with nothing left over for savings, a 5% fine would be devastating. If I'm a rich person living off of (debt secured by) my investments, a 5% fine, even if it's hundreds of thousands of dollars, is pocket change compared to my true income and wealth.
A fine is obviously not sufficient given how widespread this practice is. If the fine is double what you gained but you are less than 50% likely to get caught, logic dictates you should commit the crime. Again, prison is the only deterrent that works on the rich.
> If the fine is double what you gained but you are less than 50% likely to get caught, logic dictates you should commit the crime.
It turns out that people’s decisions whether or not to break the law have very little to do with any rational economic calculation about the probability of being caught. Consider how shoplifting is basically not enforced in San Francisco anymore. People just steal things from the store in broad daylight and nobody bothers even trying to stop them. Sure, this does result in a lot of shoplifting, but the question is, why does anyone bother paying when they could just brazenly take their desired merchandise out the door with no risk of ever facing any consequences?
> If I'm a poor person living paycheck to paycheck with nothing left over for savings, a 5% fine would be devastating.
If you’re a poor person living paycheck to paycheck with nothing left over for savings even after committing enough white collar crime to be convicted in a federal court, I am really curious what you did with all the money.
People always think the old saying “an eye for an eye” is brutal and vindictive, but originally it was about proportion. An eye for an eye means that if someone takes your eye, you can be satisfied by taking their eye in return instead of taking their life. In that vein, I think fines are extremely just for financial crimes.
In the general case, some countries calculate fines according to the criminal's income for this very reason.
In this specific case, fines or, in the case of a civil lawsuit, damages in excess of the amount of money the person illegitimately gained would be sufficient.