PDA

View Full Version : Too big for the law to touch?



skuthorp
05-04-2014, 08:14 AM
"When the accounting firm Arthur Andersen was indicted in 2002 it put 85,000 people out of work".
If the US justice dept decides to prosecute Credit Swisse and BNP Paribas and, as usual they go out of business will law enforcement be in trouble rather than the banks? Holder has evidently told a congressional panel that some banks 'may' have become too big to prosecute because of the fallout in the economy.
I have paraphrased parts of this article, originally from Bloomberg bt Robert Schmidt.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/charging-banks-can-be-terminal-for-us-prosecutors-20140502-37lch.html

Paul Pless
05-04-2014, 08:19 AM
Holder has evidently told a congressional panel that some banks 'may' have become too big to prosecute because of the fallout in the economy.

a complete failure of the obama justice dept. . .

Don't prosecute and fine the entire firm into bankruptcy, just hit the one or two guys at the very top with a heavy jail sentence. This is how you effectively reform our financial industry. . .

Reynard38
05-04-2014, 08:22 AM
a complete failure of the obama justice dept. . .

Don't prosecute and fine the entire firm into bankruptcy, just hit the one or two guys at the very top with a heavy jail sentence. This is how you effectively reform our financial industry. . .

+1

Hang the captain when the ship runs aground, not the cook.

skuthorp
05-04-2014, 08:30 AM
I guess that depends on how the corporation is organised and how the law is written.

Paul Pless
05-04-2014, 08:43 AM
I guess that depends on how the corporation is organised and how the law is written.If the guy at the top is so insulated as to be ignorant of an operation or business practice that may bankrupt his company; then I would posit that he should be held criminally negligent. . .


So maybe we prosecute a few of these guys and maybe they're found innocent or acquitted; but the cases would move the discussion forward with regards to changing the legal environment that large corporations and financial institutions operate in.

hanleyclifford
05-04-2014, 08:51 AM
If the guy at the top is so insulated as to be ignorant of an operation or business practice that may bankrupt his company; then I would posit that he should be held criminally negligent. . .


So maybe we prosecute a few of these guys and maybe they're found innocent or acquitted; but the cases would move the discussion forward with regards to changing the legal environment that large corporations and financial institutions operate in. Let's get started.

Paul Pless
05-04-2014, 09:06 AM
i appreciate and sympathize, Paul.... But what is less known is that in many of the big 'scandals', these guys couldn't be prosecuted because at least technically, there was no crime they could be charged with. Yeah, I agree, it would SEEM that the crime would be 'criminal neglect' , but apparently, no such crime statute exists. It is far less of a failure of Obama's justice dept., than it is of congress' failure to legislate.

Ask Hokiefan or Mickeylake who is criminal responsible for negligence for a chemical spill at the facilities that they run. I understand your point about the law and technicalities, but let the justice department make the case. If they fail to do so, then maybe Congress will be forced to change the law. . .

CWSmith
05-04-2014, 09:17 AM
Yes, hang the captain, but break up the ship!!!!! Too big to prosecute is too big to fail and that means to damn big.

Paul Pless
05-04-2014, 09:17 AM
come on, Paul... Would you really want the justice department making arrests and indictments based upon what they know not to be a legal basis? RodB's head would explode! :)i can't believe someone who is so loud a critic of inequality in america, takes this side of this debate. .

CWSmith
05-04-2014, 09:41 AM
i must be be a right-winger then, because I find the idea of trying to prosecute ANYONE for something which isn't a crime, under law, to be abhorrent.

Are we talking about banks or basketball?

The Bigfella
05-04-2014, 09:45 AM
Um...Not sure I believe that.

Most of them moved directly to other accounting firms that immediately took over the contracts for the clients.

I'm also not sure it's accurate to say, "as usual they go out of business."

JP Morgan Chase just payed a $1.7 Billion dollar settlement, and they're still in business.
Wells Fargo payed $541 Million and they're still in business.
Citigroup is going to pay $1.13 billion.
Bank of America has apparently agreed to pay a whopping $6.3 Billion. (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/bank-of-america-to-pay-6-3-billion-to-settle-mortgage-securities-suit/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)


Sure, you could argue that these don't count because they were merely settlements, not criminal prosecutions (although I understand some of these might come along with criminal prosecution), but I don't think you can make a solid case that going after banks usually drives them out of business.

Payed?

Not once, but twice.

Mr always so accurate, ain't always so....

Paul Pless
05-04-2014, 09:45 AM
i must be be a right-winger then, because I find the idea of trying to prosecute ANYONE for something which isn't a crime, under law, to be abhorrent.

first, you have to define what they did as a crime...

THEN, you put their balls in a vice and spin the handle :)We're not talking some two bit crime; we're talking a crime that according Eric Holder, the company might go bankrupt if prosecuted. . .

The Bigfella
05-04-2014, 10:13 AM
Its OK... we'll still love you in the morning... or whatever the saying is

CWSmith
05-04-2014, 10:16 AM
We're not talking some two bit crime; we're talking a crime that according Eric Holder, the company might go bankrupt if prosecuted. . .

Republicans are good at buying companies and breaking them up. They tried to get one of these fellows elected president last time. We can do the same. Investors will suffer, but they chose to invest in that company with all its practices.

John Smith
05-04-2014, 10:44 AM
I agree with the sentiment of this thread. Wealthy, powerful people don't go to jail, and that's not limited to banks.

There is, however, another side to this issue. The repeal of Glass/Steagull and the passing of Dodd/Frank.

The government needs to have an effective role in overseeing the financial institutions.

Paul Pless
05-04-2014, 10:46 AM
There is, however, another side to this issue. The repeal of Glass/Steagull and the passing of Dodd/Frank.
democratic party failures, both. . .

PeterSibley
05-04-2014, 06:10 PM
but, but ...what about the donations ? Who's going to fund the parties if you start attacking their major donors ?

oznabrag
05-04-2014, 06:55 PM
a complete failure of the obama justice dept. . .

Don't prosecute and fine the entire firm into bankruptcy, just hit the one or two guys at the very top with a heavy jail sentence. This is how you effectively reform our financial industry. . .

Yes.


If the guy at the top is so insulated as to be ignorant of an operation or business practice that may bankrupt his company; then I would posit that he should be held criminally negligent. . .


So maybe we prosecute a few of these guys and maybe they're found innocent or acquitted; but the cases would move the discussion forward with regards to changing the legal environment that large corporations and financial institutions operate in.

Yes.


b

First you have to define the crime.

However, I'm in agreement on this: those banks would not have gone under, and the systemic risk was probably a lot lower than people thought at the time.... but notice the phrase, 'at the time'. Give them a break, they had no idea what the consequences might have been.

If congress could stand up and write legislation that would make many of these acts criminal, it would be a different story... but the legislation is lacking.

A good example: we all know what front-running in the stock market is... and it's been illegal for a long time. So, tell me, why is it illegal if a human does it over the course of several minutes.... but not illegal, if a computer does it over a 4 microsecond period? It's the same damn crime... the only difference is the time scale.... yet, it's perfectly legal... and HFT's profit to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars, doing it.

Want to blame that one on Obama too?

Seems to me that a creative DOJ could use the existing law to make some of these criminals sweat.

They are stealing, and stealing is wrong.

Just because the method of stealing has not been codified, doesn't mean it is not stealing.

A prosecutor entering 47 reams of documentation of these thefts as evidence of violating the spirit of the existing law would be hard to ignore, for one, and bringing such a case would at the very least drag these greedy [redacted] out into the sunlight, where the people they've been stealing from could demand that something be done, and give O'Bama yet another thing he can be proud of.

pipefitter
05-04-2014, 07:01 PM
Wealthy, powerful people don't go to jail, and that's not limited to banks.

Bernie Madoff went to jail. The main difference being, he defrauded other wealthy people.

Paul Pless
05-04-2014, 07:10 PM
Seems to me that a creative DOJ could use the existing law to make some of these criminals sweat.

They are stealing, and stealing is wrong.

Just because the method of stealing has not been codified, doesn't mean it is not stealing.

A prosecutor entering 47 reams of documentation of these thefts as evidence of violating the spirit of the existing law would be hard to ignore, for one, and bringing such a case would at the very least drag these greedy [redacted] out into the sunlight, where the people they've been stealing from could demand that something be done, and give O'Bama yet another thing he can be proud of.

kind of like how rico laws are used against the mob and large drug gang organizations. . .

Paul Pless
05-04-2014, 07:18 PM
y'all reckon if such a trial were to come about as i've suggested, that john smith would end his avowed refusal to serve on juries? ;):D

oznabrag
05-04-2014, 08:07 PM
do you REALLY want the DOJ to be 'creative' about the existing laws to de facto synthesize law itself?

I am as outraged as the next guy about all of this..... But be careful what you wish for.

No, I do not.

I want the DOJ to get creative about ways to use existing laws to nail the [redacted] hides to the [redacted] barn.

To drag these dregs of humanity out into the light. To make them sweat. To make them pay for the transgressions against common decency they have perpetrated upon all of us.

It's like watching some bastard rape your wife, and NOT bashing his brains in because he's raping her in microseconds, so it's not a legitimate rape.

That is BULLFEATHERS!

What the heck is the point of having laws if they can't hang the bad guys?

What the heck is the point of having a law against front running if it doesn't outlaw front running?

THAT is MY question. What the [redacted] sort of mumbo-jumbo does it take to convince a prosecutor that front running is a crime?

hanleyclifford
05-04-2014, 08:42 PM
I can understand your anger over this despicable practice, Rattler; I have never bought a stock or bond, but if I were to do so it would have to be on the basis of unimpeachable inside information (which I'm told is illegal). :)

JBreeze
05-04-2014, 09:11 PM
do you REALLY want the DOJ to be 'creative' about the existing laws to de facto synthesize law itself?

I am as outraged as the next guy about all of this..... But be careful what you wish for.

Nonsense. DOJ wouldn't have to be "creative" at all if Eric Holder would enforce Sarbanes-Oxley...cases against Jon Corzine (MF Global) and Jamie Dimon (London whale case) would be slam-dunks if DOJ chose to prosecute.

Sarbanes Oxley hasn't been repealed (yet).

But what do you expect from a DOJ headed by Holder? His biases were apparent during his stint during the Clinton administration, where he was the DOJ key man for the pardon of Marc Rich:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/02/marc_rich_presidential_pardon_how_eric_holder_faci litated_the_most_unjust.html

PeterSibley
05-05-2014, 04:46 AM
Bernie Madoff went to jail. The main difference being, he defrauded other wealthy people.

We have a winner .

Nicholas Scheuer
05-05-2014, 07:17 AM
In case the Repubs haven't noticed, banks have been getting bigger and bigger, growing algebraically for decades. I ask you, how often has a bank near you changed signage over the last twenty years? No all of this "bidnez" growth" by Repub Pirates is Obama's fault? Give me a go- da-m break, will'ya?