Last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said he will consider whether the Justice Department will bring civil or criminal cases against individuals on Wall Street tied to the 2008-09 financial crisis. Despite Holder’s tough-sounding words, most people would agree with James Stewart who wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times that he’s not holding his breath.

Stewart cited a handful of high-profile cases of Fortune 500 companies settling plea deals with federal prosecutors in which the companies paid millions of dollars, even more than a billion dollars, in fines for corporate wrongdoing, yet not one executive was prosecuted. It’s been the same story with Wall Street firms since the financial crisis — big banks agreed to pay billions in penatlies and fines, but not a single high-ranking executive faced charges. The banks paid the fines, which came out of shareholders’ pockets, and executives never went to trial.

Some say the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington explains the reluctance to hold individuals accountable. Executives at top Wall Street firms often take jobs in Washington, with the Treasury Department or Securities and Exchange Commission or even the White House, then return to Wall Street after a few years. This cozy relationship surely builds in a bias against prosecuting old pals.

Reluctance to prosecute Wall Street bankers could also be linked to campaign contributions — big banks were the largest campaign contributors to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign among others.

During the crisis, we learned that certain Wall Street banks were considered “too big to fail,” which was the logic behind multibillion-dollar bailouts for big banks. Holder has also suggested that the leading Wall Street executives were “too big to jail,” arguing that prosecution of financial titans could cause a panic on Wall Street, endangering the global economy.

But Washington wasn’t always afraid to go after banking executives. In the savings and loan crisis of late 1980s and early ’90s, the Justice Department convicted more than 1,000 bank executives. It’s also worth remembering that the financial scandals surrounding WorldCom and Enron saw CEOs go to prison.

Former Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., said what millions of Americans have been wondering when he asked Holder, “How could you have had this much fraud requiring billions of dollars in fines and yet there isn’t one single executive of a bank that you brought a criminal case against?”

Holder has directed U.S. prosecutors to report back to him within 90 days on whether they think any cases can be prosecuted. Again, Americans must be asking why Holder didn’t issue this directive three or four years ago? The Obama administration could be tired of being seen as soft on Wall Street crime. At this point, though, the statute of limimtations could mean Holder’s tough talk is just that — talk.

There had been public pressure for the Justice Department to go after individual Wall Street bankers for their roles in the financial crisis. Despite the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the threat of prison time could be more effective at changing the culture on Wall Street. If wealthy bankers faced losing their fortunes and a prison sentence, they might be less inclined to engage in the kind of business practices that led to the financial crisis.

Before summer arrives, Holder should make another speech announcing whether any Wall Street executives will be prosecuted. Most Americans, like columnist Stewart, are not holding their breath. Wall Street’s bosses and their pals in Washington are just fine letting company shareholders pay the billion-dollar fines, while all the executives remain unscathed.