The Banking Crisis and the Settlement

[Jacob]

Interesting article on the banking crisis and the settlement - allegedly a complete coverup: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106

It does not make Eric Holder look very good, and it certainly seems to support the notion that the culture war is primarily fought to keep people's attention away from what's going on with big money.

[Norgy]

Of course, any regulation of this particular industry would "hamper it". And thankfully so. Cleanse it with fire.

[The Minsky Moment]

I've read enough Matt Taibbi in my life to be wary of reading more.
If someone will take on excepting some key points I'll look.

[crazy canuck]

I've read enough Matt Taibbi in my life to be wary of reading more.
If someone will take on excepting some key points I'll look.

Tried to find some bits but it is a lot of innuendo mixed with allegations of coverup without any substance to back it up.  Stopped reading about halfway through.

[Jacob]

I've read enough Matt Taibbi in my life to be wary of reading more.
If someone will take on excepting some key points I'll look.

I took away two main points:

1) The lady he's interviewing worked at Chase in compliance and says she saw deliberate fraud, that she was told not to voice any concerns in writing; she also alleges that the DoJ was not interested in hearing from her beyond an initial conversation.

2) The penalties levelled against Chase are said to be a big number meaning little, in that most of it wasn't paid for by the bank, could be written off in taxes, and/or were money they were paying anyway in unrelated ways.

I don't know enough about these things to say how credible they are, which is why I brought it up here.

Oh, and I think they also so say that key senior people in the DoJ investigation and settlement have moved or are moving to senior positions in the companies they investigated.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ok I read the first few lines and it looked like a dating profile.

I gather that it is about the JPM civil settlement.  Which is the largest is US history. 
What does Taibbi say got covered up and how much does he think the settlement should be?

[Barrister]

Ok I read the first few lines and it looked like a dating profile.

I gather that it is about the JPM civil settlement.  Which is the largest is US history. 
What does Taibbi say got covered up and how much does he think the settlement should be?

His complaints seem to be:

-that the admission by JPM was so vague it allows JPM to continue to deny they did anything wrong
-that the settlement was never reviewed by a judge
-that despite it being a civil settlement, no one was ever criminally charged
-that the $9b is a purely paper number, reflecting in part "consumer relief", and allowing JPM to use the remainder as a tax write-off

[Admiral Yi]

-that despite it being a civil settlement, no one was ever criminally charged

Isn't that how it usually goes? 

[Jacob]

Ok I read the first few lines and it looked like a dating profile.

I gather that it is about the JPM civil settlement.  Which is the largest is US history. 
What does Taibbi say got covered up and how much does he think the settlement should be?

His complaints seem to be:

-that the admission by JPM was so vague it allows JPM to continue to deny they did anything wrong
-that the settlement was never reviewed by a judge
-that despite it being a civil settlement, no one was ever criminally charged
-that the $9b is a purely paper number, reflecting in part "consumer relief", and allowing JPM to use the remainder as a tax write-off

And that Fleischmann provides testimony that deliberate fraud/ theft occurred, but that she's never been called to testify.

[Barrister]

-that despite it being a civil settlement, no one was ever criminally charged

Isn't that how it usually goes? 

The two are separate and apart.  It's not unusual for someone I prosecute to also be the subject of a civil lawsuit.  If that civil lawsuit settles it makes zero difference to by ongoing prosecution.

[The Minsky Moment]

So ...

1) There was a statement of facts annexed as part of the settlement.  It says JPM knew the securities were based mortgages that didn't conform to guidelines but knowingly marketed them as such.  It also mentions that an internal employee wrote a memo saying the deal shouldn't be marketed; I assume that is the tall, thin attractive witness of the article.

2) The settlement was reviewed by a judge.  And approved.

3) It was a civil investigation by investigators lacking prosecutorial power.  The right to bring criminal charges was expressly reserved.  AFAIK there is still a criminal investigation.

4). The $9 billion consists of cash payments made by electronic fund transfer.  Its right in the settlement.

5).The witness wouldn't be called to testify if there is a settlement.  Settlement means no trial, no testimony.

[Barrister]

3) It was a civil investigation by investigators lacking prosecutorial power.  The right to bring criminal charges was expressly reserved.  AFAIK there is still a criminal investigation.

Have any charges being laid?

Quoted from the article:

In September, at a speech at NYU, Holder defended the lack of prosecutions of top executives on the grounds that, in the corporate context, sometimes bad things just happen without actual people being responsible. "Responsibility remains so diffuse, and top executives so insulated," Holder said, "that any misconduct could again be considered more a symptom of the institution's culture than a result of the willful actions of any single individual."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106#ixzz3IQ9lPA1A
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

It doesn't sound like any charges will be forthcoming.

[crazy canuck]

I've read enough Matt Taibbi in my life to be wary of reading more.
If someone will take on excepting some key points I'll look.

I took away two main points:

1) The lady he's interviewing worked at Chase in compliance and says she saw deliberate fraud, that she was told not to voice any concerns in writing; she also alleges that the DoJ was not interested in hearing from her beyond an initial conversation.

2) The penalties levelled against Chase are said to be a big number meaning little, in that most of it wasn't paid for by the bank, could be written off in taxes, and/or were money they were paying anyway in unrelated ways.

I don't know enough about these things to say how credible they are, which is why I brought it up here.

Oh, and I think they also so say that key senior people in the DoJ investigation and settlement have moved or are moving to senior positions in the companies they investigated.

I reads like a witness who doesnt really understand what the case was or how the Plaintiff was proceeding or why.  That is not uncommon.

[The Minsky Moment]

It doesn't sound like any charges will be forthcoming.

Criminal charges would be brought by one of the regional US attorney's offices.  The Attorney General usually does not interfere in that process.  I don't know the details of these investigations (for that matter - neither does Taibbi or Rolling Stone).  I do know that if there is a case to made a US attorney would be bringing and making that case.  There is no reticence in the US attorneys offices to bring white collar cases; to the contrary, here in Manhattan they are a priority, with dedicated teams of attorneys compromising some of their best people.

[citizen k]

2) The settlement was reviewed by a judge.  And approved.

Shocking!