I think that it's important to recognize that he did have to surrender all of his assets (if I'm reading the decision correctly) and the fine imposed was the maximum, even if the jail sentence was minimal. I do think that the severity of the fines reflects the severity of his crime, and is an important reflection of how seriously the court does take his wrongdoing. As for the sentence itself, I have to say I'm still a little unsure how I feel- I totally get that the concern of reducing individual culpability because of the crimes of others is a big one. I just don't know if that's the only thing going on here: yes, the judge certainly stresses the culpability of the system and government, etc- but he also looks into deterrence values, family situation (which, as you said, could easily apply to many white-collar criminals, so I don't know how much weight this reasoning holds), and defendant's conduct (both in the past as a community member and since his arrest and positive response to supervision). I'm just not convinced how much benefit a much larger sentence would have- and if there isn't a real benefit, I don't know how the punishment is justified. (Then again, you could probably argue that the mere fact of the severity of his culpability justifies a lengthy sentence by itself, as just desert, but if that's the case- how can we accurately quantify that culpability?)

-- JessicaHallett - 04 Feb 2010