Even if guilty, what GS has to do with any debt beyond what it raised for 1mdb (us$6b)?
You write: "Given that GS was the underwriter and allegedly the key enabler of the scandal, punishing GS by making them pay at least the majority of those taxpayer losses seems unjustified or unfair to you? What amount do you believe is fair?"
But from reading the first paragraph under the History section here:
it is clear that by the time Goldman started raising money for 1mdb (2012 if i am not mistaken), a lot of money been raised already, i.e. GS wasn't the key enabler.
So why blame Goldman for all the debt accumulated under 1mdb?
Even if guilty, what GS has to do with any debt beyond what it raised for 1mdb (us$6b)?
You write: "Given that GS was the underwriter and allegedly the key enabler of the scandal, punishing GS by making them pay at least the majority of those taxpayer losses seems unjustified or unfair to you? What amount do you believe is fair?"
But from reading the first paragraph under the History section here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1Malaysia_Development_Berhad
it is clear that by the time Goldman started raising money for 1mdb (2012 if i am not mistaken), a lot of money been raised already, i.e. GS wasn't the key enabler.
So why blame Goldman for all the debt accumulated under 1mdb?