The noose appears to be tightening on bankers.
For a few years after 2007's credit crunch and market crash, it seemed they were able to elude any blame or censure.
They may have lent recklessly and rewarded themselves lavishly, but it wasn't really their fault.
It was a once-in-a-lifetime event, a "perfect storm" that did for them, they said.
Blame the price of oil, the Chinese, the people who borrowed when they did not have jobs and had no realistic expectations of ever servicing the loans, they said.
Governments were persuaded to rally round to keep the economy afloat.
Banks were allowed to borrow at pitiful interest rates and begged to lend more, something most of them avoided, preferring to invest in treasuries rather than companies that might not pay them back. In Britain, George Osborne, the chancellor, secured an agreement in February with the banks that he said would involve transparency, increased lending to corporates and restraint on pay.
The problem is that Sir Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, now says that the "Merlin targets" for banks' level of support to the economy overstate the case.
They may be making money available for lending but it is not being disbursed.
Now George Soros has joined the criticism of bankers, saying he has some sympathy for the protesters seeking to occupy Wall Street.
He is right, of course. But what happens next? If you are a top banker, you fire a few more thousand workers, increase credit card charges and head to the golf course in the hope that they don't find you there.
The noose may be tightening, but it will be some time before we see any bankers hung out to dry.