PDA

View Full Version : Finally, a Judge Stands up to Wall Street



Qtec
11-14-2011, 05:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Federal judge Jed Rakoff, a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s office here in New York, is fast becoming a sort of legal hero of our time. He showed that again yesterday when he shat all over the SEC’s latest dirty settlement with serial fraud offender Citigroup, refusing to let the captured regulatory agency sweep yet another case of high-level criminal malfeasance under the rug.

The SEC had brought an action against Citigroup for misleading investors about the way a certain package of mortgage-backed assets had been chosen. The case is very similar to the notorious Abacus case involving Goldman Sachs, in which Goldman allowed short-selling billionaire John Paulson (who was betting against the package) to pick the assets, then told a pair of European banks that the “designed to fail” package they were buying had been put together independently.

This case was similar, but worse. Here, Citi similarly told investors a package of mortgages had been chosen independently, when in fact Citi itself had chosen the stuff and was betting against the whole pile.

This whole transaction actually combined a number of Goldman-style misdeeds, since the bank both lied to investors and also bet against its own product and its own customers. In the deal, Citi made a $160 million profit, while its customers lost $700 million.

Goldman, in the Abacus case, got fined $550 million. In this worse case, the SEC was trying to settle with Citi for just $285 million. Judge Rakoff balked at the settlement and particularly balked at the SEC’s decision to allow Citi off without any admission of wrongdoing. He also mocked the SEC’s decision to describe the crime as “negligence” instead of intentional fraud, taking the entirely rational position that there’s no way a bank making $160 million ripping off its customers can conceivably be described as an accident.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Why should the court impose a judgement in a case in which the SEC alleges a serious securities fraud but the defendant neither admits nor denies wrongdoing?” And this: “How can a securities fraud of this nature and magnitude be the result simply of negligence?”
</span>
Rakoff of course is right – the settlement is nuts. If you take Citi’s $160 million profit on the deal into consideration, what we’re talking about then is a $125 million fine for causing $700 million in damages. That, and no admission of wrongdoing.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just imagine a mugger who steals $70 from some lady’s wallet being sentenced to walk free after paying back twelve bucks. Magritte himself could not devise a more surreal take on criminal justice.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">It gets worse. Over the last decade, Citi has repeatedly been caught committing a variety of offences, and time after time the bank has been dragged into court and slapped with injunctions demanding that they refrain from ever engaging the same practices ever again. Over and over again, they’ve completely blown off the injunctions, with no consequences from the state – which does nothing except issue new (soon-to-be-ignored-again) injunctions.</span></span>

In this current case, this particular unit at Citi had already been slapped with two different SEC cease-and-desist orders barring it from violating certain securities laws. Here’s a summary from Bloomberg:

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo...0#ixzz1dg8fL2X4 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/finally-a-judge-stands-up-to-wall-street-20111110#ixzz1dg8fL2X4)
</div></div>

This is what the OWS is about. Two sets of laws, one for the big corps and another for the 99%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to recap: a unit of Citigroup, having <u>repeatedly violated the same laws and having repeatedly violated the SEC’s own cease-and-desist orders and injunctions,</u> is dragged into court one more time for committing a massive fraud.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>And what does the SEC do? It doesn’t even bring up Citi’s history of ignoring the SEC’s own order, slaps the bank with a fractional fine, refuses to target any individuals, allows the bank to walk away without an admission of wrongdoing, and puts a cherry on the top by describing the $160 million heist not as a crime, but as unintentional negligence.</span>

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo...0#ixzz1dg9XB5k7 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/finally-a-judge-stands-up-to-wall-street-20111110#ixzz1dg9XB5k7)
</div></div>



Q


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The amazing thing about the <u>wave of corruption that has overtaken the financial services industry </u>is that most of it couldn’t happen without virtually every player at every level signing off on these deals. From the ratings agencies to the law firms to the accounting firms to the regulators to the bank executives themselves, <u>everybody had to be on board in order for a lot of these fraud schemes to work.</u>


</div></div>

Gayle in MD
11-14-2011, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Federal judge Jed Rakoff, a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s office here in New York, is fast becoming a sort of legal hero of our time. He showed that again yesterday when he shat all over the SEC’s latest dirty settlement with serial fraud offender Citigroup, refusing to let the captured regulatory agency sweep yet another case of high-level criminal malfeasance under the rug.

The SEC had brought an action against Citigroup for misleading investors about the way a certain package of mortgage-backed assets had been chosen. The case is very similar to the notorious Abacus case involving Goldman Sachs, in which Goldman allowed short-selling billionaire John Paulson (who was betting against the package) to pick the assets, then told a pair of European banks that the “designed to fail” package they were buying had been put together independently.

This case was similar, but worse. Here, Citi similarly told investors a package of mortgages had been chosen independently, when in fact Citi itself had chosen the stuff and was betting against the whole pile.

This whole transaction actually combined a number of Goldman-style misdeeds, since the bank both lied to investors and also bet against its own product and its own customers. In the deal, Citi made a $160 million profit, while its customers lost $700 million.

Goldman, in the Abacus case, got fined $550 million. In this worse case, the SEC was trying to settle with Citi for just $285 million. Judge Rakoff balked at the settlement and particularly balked at the SEC’s decision to allow Citi off without any admission of wrongdoing. He also mocked the SEC’s decision to describe the crime as “negligence” instead of intentional fraud, taking the entirely rational position that there’s no way a bank making $160 million ripping off its customers can conceivably be described as an accident.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Why should the court impose a judgement in a case in which the SEC alleges a serious securities fraud but the defendant neither admits nor denies wrongdoing?” And this: “How can a securities fraud of this nature and magnitude be the result simply of negligence?”
</span>
Rakoff of course is right – the settlement is nuts. If you take Citi’s $160 million profit on the deal into consideration, what we’re talking about then is a $125 million fine for causing $700 million in damages. That, and no admission of wrongdoing.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just imagine a mugger who steals $70 from some lady’s wallet being sentenced to walk free after paying back twelve bucks. Magritte himself could not devise a more surreal take on criminal justice.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">It gets worse. Over the last decade, Citi has repeatedly been caught committing a variety of offences, and time after time the bank has been dragged into court and slapped with injunctions demanding that they refrain from ever engaging the same practices ever again. Over and over again, they’ve completely blown off the injunctions, with no consequences from the state – which does nothing except issue new (soon-to-be-ignored-again) injunctions.</span></span>

In this current case, this particular unit at Citi had already been slapped with two different SEC cease-and-desist orders barring it from violating certain securities laws. Here’s a summary from Bloomberg:

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo...0#ixzz1dg8fL2X4 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/finally-a-judge-stands-up-to-wall-street-20111110#ixzz1dg8fL2X4)
</div></div>

This is what the OWS is about. Two sets of laws, one for the big corps and another for the 99%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to recap: a unit of Citigroup, having <u>repeatedly violated the same laws and having repeatedly violated the SEC’s own cease-and-desist orders and injunctions,</u> is dragged into court one more time for committing a massive fraud.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>And what does the SEC do? It doesn’t even bring up Citi’s history of ignoring the SEC’s own order, slaps the bank with a fractional fine, refuses to target any individuals, allows the bank to walk away without an admission of wrongdoing, and puts a cherry on the top by describing the $160 million heist not as a crime, but as unintentional negligence.</span>

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo...0#ixzz1dg9XB5k7 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/finally-a-judge-stands-up-to-wall-street-20111110#ixzz1dg9XB5k7)
</div></div>



Q


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The amazing thing about the <u>wave of corruption that has overtaken the financial services industry </u>is that most of it couldn’t happen without virtually every player at every level signing off on these deals. From the ratings agencies to the law firms to the accounting firms to the regulators to the bank executives themselves, <u>everybody had to be on board in order for a lot of these fraud schemes to work.</u>


</div></div> </div></div>The great rightwing lie of the "Free Market"....and a judge is actually brave enough to speak out against their corruption? Is this possibly, (I hope) a shift back to reality, possibly an offshoot of OWS?

This is why we are seeing the Fox organization, and other Neocon media, making up lies about the OWS protests across the country and around the world.

People (fascists) of the Neocon right try to drive across the idea that OWS groups have no policy?

LMAO! They do have a policy, they are honed like lazer beam right on the CROOKS who stole everything, and threw our country, and other countries, into this global recession. the crooks who walked away, scott free!

Gall, pure GALL, of the Republicans, to try and lay all of this nightmare, on our Middle Class, our old and our poor, Fannie and Freddie.....while before our very eyes, their idiot contenders like Cain, Newt, Bachmann, and above ALL Romney, as they spew out their dog whistle hate,<span style='font-size: 11pt'> die, starve, blame yourself....</span> and other irrational defensive lies galore, while having a race of stooping to the lowest common denominator to keep the sheep energized in their hate and ignorance.

The last two Republican debates should scare the hell out of Americans! OMG, if they had Cain, Bachmann, Trump, Palin, at one time, as their top choices, that tells us everything we need to know about the gross ignorance of Republican Voters.

Romney, Newt??? Huntsman is the only one on that stage with any intellect or reason, hence, he's at the bottom of the barrel, to much truth, to many reasoned answers, everythng the right can't stand. He also exposes the gross ingorance, and corporate cornyism, of McInsane, Graham, Leiberman, Boehner, McConnell....buzz word lies, that's their one and only policy, blocking economic advances, for political gain.

Disgusting. Not one of them could have led this country through the nightmare of the Bush Legacy, and achieved the successes of our current president.

We'd likely already be mired down in a global level Middle East crisis if either McInsane, Newt, or laughable Mitt, had been running things....

"If President Obama is president, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. If I am president, they will not have a nuclear weapon."

WHAT A LIAR!!!! Laughable!

G.

cushioncrawler
11-14-2011, 02:48 PM
It would be interesting to know the total dollars of all armed bank robberys in theusofa.
And kompare this to the white collar bank crime dollars.
mac.

Gayle in MD
11-14-2011, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It would be interesting to know the total dollars of all armed bank robberys in theusofa.
And kompare this to the white collar bank crime dollars.
mac. </div></div>

Wouldn't even make a dent compared to what Wall St. Pigs have stolen from the world.....

The radical Neocon RW of the Rove Repiglican cabal, is setting up lies and intruders to disgrace the OWS movement.

Fascists alarmed over people waking up to their fascist policies.

The OWS is gaining support, not losing it. Rove and the Neocons can give it up. The "Awakening" is already underway.

G.