So ....
When they indict and charge someone, the prosecutor charges all of the crimes that they think they can prove. When you have a number of distinct acts (as in many appraisals which were inflated or used false identifites) that results in many separate counts. When one refers to the "maximum sentence" that is the total maximum prison term for each sentence all strung together (so, 8 counts times 20 years max on each count equals 160 years.). In fact, prison terms, especially in these types of cases, are not usually that severe. The most likley outcome is that the defendant pleads guity to one or two charges. In a very minor percent of cases the defendant insists on trial. A good defense attorney will generally talk their client into a plea - being convicted of 8 counts has a very different outcome than pleading to one.). Then, after a plea or trial, a presentence investigation report is prepared by probation that examines many factors. The defendant can dispute the findings, The judge then sentences after considering the factors. I wrote about this process in detail here -
http://www.mortgagefraudblog.com/31204-2/.
So a 166 year sentence is the max but it is highly unlikely that a sentence anywhere in this range would result.
And, yes, in the federal system, at least 85% of the sentence will be served. In state cases this percentage is often much less.
The $1,000 fine is a court cost related fine and this is always part of the sentence. It can also be reduced.
To be convicted of a crime, one has to have actually engaged in conduct that was criminalized by a criminal statute and must have had the required intent at the time the act was committed. Most of the conduct of bank executives that the public is enraged over does not fit within the defeinition of any crime that existed during the financial crisis. But, contrary to popular wisdom, there have been a number of bank executives convicted for crimes arising out of the financial crisis.
