Watch the documentary Small Enough to Jail (Frontline, 2017). This film is about the mortgage fraud prosecution under New York state law of a family-owned bank. After you have watched the movie, address the following prompts in a response paper. (A direct link to the documentary: (Links to an external site.) ) 1. 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?