mainstream vs propaganda, page-9

no danhoff it certainly doesn't work like that IMO.

Two main types of law: civil and criminal.

The authority for confidentiality agreement, or commercial in confidence agreement or an obligation for confidentiality arising out of employment arrangements is civil law based and a combination of statute and judgement based decisions (legal precedent).

Criminal law is also a combination of statute and legal precedent. The key point is that you cannot contract out of a statutory obligation in criminal law. You certainly cannot do that using a civil law defence, that would make a mockery of the criminal law system.

So if there is a criminal offence that might have been committed it is no defence to say "well what we did was legal under civil law".

Separate to that, an individual facing investigation or criminal charges may chose to remain silent rather than answer questions, saying "I was just following orders". Investigating bodies have powers to undertake covert surveillance. Further, as a general principle there is no requirement of actual knowledge of illegality, it is enough that the law has been breached. After charges have been laid or are set to be laid, plea bargaining can take place. This is a matter of negotiation with the authorities. The laws which may have been broken sit at the background tothis.

Issues about individual responsibility would be taken into account, but will depend on the circumstances of the case. Usually what happens is a person who is lower down the chain will do a plea bargaining deal for reduced charges, or outright exoneration in exchange for providing evidence that implicates others (usually up the chain). But not always. Sometimes evidentiary deals are done with people high up the chain.

In practical terms, I think the fact that regulators have suffered massive cut-backs due to government austerity is a KEY to your question.

Further, the failure to require banks to hold higher levels of cash and liquid assets, and failure not to re-introduce Glass-Steagal Act separating savings banks from speculative activity is the basis of considerable on-going risk, especially re derivatives.

(IMO. Off the top of my head, and not researched, as this issue is worth many hours of research.)