Why did the New York prosecutors pursue charges against Abacus and its owners after the federal government declined to charge them? Do you agree with the prosecutors’ decision? Is it important to pursue difficult cases despite the risk of losing, as Jesse Eisinger said in his interview, and was this that type of situation? Why or why not? 2. What differences did you see between Abacus and other financial institutions highlighted in The Untouchables (i.e., Countrywide)? What similarities did you see when comparing Abacus and Countrywide and other mortgage originators? 3. Does this case illustrate the difficulties in prosecuting banks or is there a different reason for the outcome of this trial? Why do you believe this? Would the outcome have been different if the government had sought a civil remedy, with a lower burden of proof, instead of a criminal charge? Why or why not?
