Final answer:
The banker should not be convicted of the crime if there is not enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the principles of justice require that only those responsible for a crime should be held accountable.
Step-by-step explanation:
For the banker to be convicted of a crime, there must be sufficient evidence that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to demonstrate that the banker committed the alleged crime. If there is not enough evidence to establish the banker's guilt, he should not be convicted.
It is also important to note that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The banker should be afforded the right to present a defense and have a fair trial. If there are doubts about his guilt, the court must err on the side of caution and acquit the banker.
Furthermore, the principles of justice dictate that only those responsible for a crime should be held accountable. If there is reasonable doubt about the banker's involvement or if there is evidence pointing to another individual's culpability, it would be unjust to convict the banker.