The 59 million fine apparently is unlikely to result in a business or organisational culture change, commentators in the UK have said that fines, when they are affordable, and they always will be affordable because economies are dependent upon banks, then they just become an additional business cost.
So, how to regulate them if this doesnt work, well, its clear that ethics or corporate social responsibility training and orientation are a total failure, the rewards for corruption and crime are just too collosally big for have anything other than a character shaping effect upon the people going into this field (it wouldnt corrupt me but I dont think I'm the sort of person who works in finance).
There is the suggestion that imprisonment could be a disincentive, I dont believe so, its already the case that individuals will serve sentences and accept frame ups for drug deals or other crimes in the UK because they are offered "financial settlements" by the real Godfathers which are on a par with what they would earn for each year of their sentence. I could see something similar being worked out by the banks, they're no better than gangsters at this point anyway.
The one thing which I think hasnt been talked about and should be obvious from the whole "too big to fail" story is that the banks need to be smaller, they need to be forced to restructure or to be broken up so that if any bank is found to be acting like this then it can be folded, closed for business and the other banks told not to hire any of the crooks involved in its dealings and business carries on as usual.