Opinion ID: 155004
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comparison of penalty with previous cases

Text: Mr. Long first appears to argue the Board erred in failing to undertake any comparison of the penalty issued in this case with the penalty issued in prior actions. Mr. Long contends the Board has never previously imposed a penalty of this magnitude where there is no evidence of harm to the bank or its customers or of misuse of control over the bank for personal gain. According to Mr. Long, the amount of the penalty in this case is unprecedented and shocks the conscience when compared to the penalty issued in prior cases. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1847(b)(1), an individual who violates a provision of the Bank Holding Company Act may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each day during which such violation continues. In determining the amount of a civil penalty, the Board shall consider: (1) the financial 10 Mr. Long has actually raised two distinct due process arguments. He first contends the Board's penalty is so excessive that it run[s] afoul of the Due Process Clause. (Apt's brief at 26.) We analyze this contention in section III.B.5., infra. Second, Mr. Long argues the Board violated his due process rights by imposing a penalty of more than twice the amount stated in the Notice of Assessment. (Id. at 30-32.) We discuss and analyze this argument in section