Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail?

Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

“Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail,” he said. “That’s your whole story right there. Hell, you don’t even have to write the rest of it. Just write that.”

I put down my notebook. “Just that?”

“That’s right,” he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. “Everything’s fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there.”

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

This article appears in the March 3, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue is available now on newsstands and will appear in the online archive February 18.

The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What’s more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even “one dollar” just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick “The Gorilla” Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.

Invasion of the Home Snatchers

Instead, federal regulators and prosecutors have let the banks and finance companies that tried to burn the world economy to the ground get off with carefully orchestrated settlements — whitewash jobs that involve the firms paying pathetically small fines without even being required to admit wrongdoing. To add insult to injury, the people who actually committed the crimes almost never pay the fines themselves; banks caught defrauding their shareholders often use shareholder money to foot the tab of justice. “If the allegations in these settlements are true,” says Jed Rakoff, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, “it’s management buying its way off cheap, from the pockets of their victims.”

Read more here

Share

Alberto Gonzales “doesn’t remember” mortgage fraud discussions

Joan McCarter, Daily Kos

For old times’ sake, here’s former, disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when asked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission about mortgage fraud allegations. The FBI actually held press conferences about it during the Bush administration, in 2004 and 2005, “calling it pervasive’ and ‘on the rise.’” But,

[F]ormer attorney general Alberto Gonzales, who served from February 2005 to 2007, told the FCIC he could not remember the press conferences or news reports about mortgage fraud. Both Gonzales and his successor Michael Mukasey, who served as attorney general in 2007 and 2008, told the FCIC that mortgage fraud had never been communicated to them as a top priority. “National security . . . was an overriding” concern, Mukasey said.

What? Who? Me? I don’t remember that. Just a walk down memory lane. And perhaps instructive to current and future administration officials on those things happening on their watch.

Share

Most banks are like Enron on crack

By Jason Werner, Foreclosure Blues

Recent depositions have been helping eyes be opened to outright foreclosure fraud.

Most experts and people who pay attention (certain victims, some attorneys, some legislators, and a few judges) have known about the obvious foreclosure fraud by banks, but many more people are realizing the fraud by the banks and it is becoming more evident the banks are barely even practicing a real business; most FDIC-member banks and credit unions are flooded in deception, concealing documents, and just hiding.

One thing I have always questioned was their “numbers,” and how they came up with them. Look, I worked in the industry, so I saw numbers all day.

Summon Enron: What did Enron do and what made their fake business so suspicious?

Enron showed and disclosed to investors and the public a huge profit with high revenue. Oddly though, their cash flow was awkwardly low considering they were making so much money and ultimately such high profit.

Most banks are doing the same thing – with the obvious difference that they are getting nearly free money created through thin air to lend.

Most of the banks, on their lending side, use smoke and mirrors to hide their fraud through a company called Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) and/or operate through established trusts called Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSAs) for their loans from Real Estate Mortgage Investment Trusts (REMIC) pursuant to money they launder mostly from government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and the Federal Reserve System.

A big lie I’ve recently noticed is their fraudulent assignments with regard to financial reporting. Sure, most people know about how the banks fraudulently assign notes, but there is an aspect that is critical to understand here, that is being missed by most people, including experts. Banks are highly likely violating Internal Revenue Code Section 860, Subsection A through C, which has deals with deficiencies. In court, for example, banks are claiming that they transferred a note on one day, yet the information on file back at their corporate offices and even in court sometimes shows that the note was transferred or assigned to a different company on a different day. This all causes problems in tax reporting. How do we know they are being honest. Well, it is obvious they are not honest about it considering the documents do not match. And there is a clear reason for that. And when they do indeed sell a note (any kind of loan obligation), how do we know they are reporting that as revenue, especially considering their cash flow is so warped?

Read more here

Share

BofA in panic mode over Wikileaks claims

Nelson D. Schwartz, NY Times

By the time the conference call ended, it was nearly midnight at Bank of America’s headquarters in Charlotte, N.C., but the bank’s counterespionage work was only just beginning.

A day earlier, on Nov. 29, the director of WikiLeaksJulian Assange, said in an interview that he intended to “take down” a major American bank and reveal an “ecosystem of corruption” with a cache of data from an executive’s hard drive. With Bank of America’s share price falling on the widely held suspicion that the hard drive was theirs, the executives on the call concluded it was time to take action.

Since then, a team of 15 to 20 top Bank of America officials, led by the chief risk officer, Bruce R. Thompson, has been overseeing a broad internal investigation — scouring thousands of documents in the event that they become public, reviewing every case where a computer has gone missing and hunting for any sign that its systems might have been compromised.

In addition to the internal team drawn from departments like finance, technology, legal and communications, the bank has brought in Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, to help manage the review. It has also sought advice from several top law firms about legal problems that could arise from a disclosure, including the bank’s potential liability if private information was disclosed about clients.

The company’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, receives regular updates on the team’s progress, according to one Bank of America executive familiar with the team’s work, who, like other bank officials, was granted anonymity to discuss the confidential inquiry.

Whether Mr. Assange is bluffing, or indeed has Bank of America in its sights at all, the bank’s defense strategy represents the latest twist in the controversy over WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange.

The United States government has been examining whether Mr. Assange, an Australian, could be charged criminally for the release by WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands of classified Pentagon and State Department diplomatic cables that became the subject of articles in The New York Times and other publications last month.

Read more here

Share