General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama to Grant Banks Robosigning Immunity [View all]joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...to maybe 50,000 prosecutions? They very likely already have a very streamlined system to be able to handle 1,000 prosecutions a year, many of which are probably people making plea deals and whatnot. At the bare minimum they can say "we're not letting this go, it's going to be prosecuted over the next 5 years" which will extend the period at which the prosecutions are made.
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the banks are throwing an "uncertainty" ball at the administration and asking for immunity before they start the loans again. But if the administration falls for it, then those 50k or so people who need to be prosecuted (and yes I have no doubt the number is that high; most would probably have to pay fines, not criminal indictments necessarily).
Robo-signing requires an employee sign off on a mortgage as a proxy, that employee was acting illegally after the passage of Dodd-Frank*, where robo-signing has gone on and continues to go on. If you recall, the banks settled over this issue, but the practice continues. If Obama wants to be serious about mortgage fraud (and let's no question that he's not serious, look at the stats, he has gone after them hard and furious!) he needs to say no to immunity here. I don't know if he'll do that, but I still can't see a reason why he'd continue the way he is. This immunity thing is very bad, it can cause issues down the road for future prosecutions, and if it's granted, I guarantee robo-signing won't go away (and a lot of those new mortgages are going to be robo-signed).
*some blame Dodd-Frank for making the paperwork requirements so high, but this is clearly fraud, and illegal.