1. In the Duke case study (Noble), identify the stages where the fraud could have been caught earlier through regulation or oversight. Are there new rules that could be put in place? If you believe new rules are needed, what would that new regulation look like and how would it be enforced? Or, if you believe this is a matter of enforcing existing regulations, which rules were not enforced and how can the government better police these complex industries?
2. In each of the cases (podcast and the Duke case), the defendants took advantage of the structure of their industries to perpetuate their fraud schemes. Discuss how the defendants used the self-regulating structures in banking and mortgage lending to get around regulations. How could this be better prevented?
3. Who are the victims in these types of cases (e.g., mortgage or bank fraud)? In these cases, do the victims have any responsibility for lax policing or regulation? Would that make the prosecution more difficult, perhaps because it may make a juror less sympathetic? Does hearing from Toby Graves, the defendant in the podcast, change your perspective on motivation? Why or why not?