Bill Black: 2011 Will Bring More de Facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud

[marmar]

December 29th, 2010 6:33 AM
2011 Will Bring More de Facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud

By William Black


The role of the criminal justice system with regard to financial fraud by elite bankers in 2011 is likely to reprise its role last decade -- de facto decriminalization. The Galleon investigation of insider trading at hedge funds will take much of the FBI's and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) focus.

The state attorneys general investigations of foreclosure fraud do focus on the major players such as the Bank of America (BoA), but they are unlikely to lead to criminal liability for any senior bank officials. It is most likely that they will lead to financial settlements that include new funding for loan modifications.

The FBI and the DOJ remain unlikely to prosecute the elite bank officers that ran the enormous "accounting control frauds" that drove the financial crisis. While over 1000 elites were convicted of felonies arising from the savings and loan (S&L) debacle, there are no convictions of controlling officers of the large nonprime lenders. The only indictment of controlling officers of a far smaller nonprime lender arose not from an investigation of the nonprime loans but rather from the lender's alleged efforts to defraud the federal government's TARP bailout program.

What has gone so catastrophically wrong with DOJ, and why has it continued so long? The fundamental flaw is that DOJ's senior leadership cannot conceive of elite bankers as criminals. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/2011-will-bring-more-de-facto

[DCKit]

1. But you can't decriminalize past acts. "No looking back", remember? nt

[fascisthunter]

2. coup

[howaboutme]

3. We need more than dangling participles

We need to see corrupt banker perps dangling from rafters as a lesson to others of their ilk.

The banks are now too big and too corrupt and politicians are on their dole. The Wall street traders are permitted to have far too much disposable income with which they use to buy off our government. We need to go back to 90% marg. tax rates on these overly rich traders who provide really nothing of worth to society.

Government regulators are in partnership rather than providing balance. They've allowed individual businesses to become too big and powerful instead of providing more competition for consumers.

[RandomThoughts]

4. That article has a statement.

1. Grow extremely rapidly
2. By making bad loans at high yields
3. While employing extreme leverage, and
4. Providing only minimal loss reserves

I actually learned that during pool days. The pool hustlers would never play another hustler, they would always go after the people that did not know what they were doing. Why Eddie really was not about him being a hustler.

Also in poker, some of the pros don't play against each other, but against the people that don't know what is happening.

That is why they don't prosecute each other also, no money in it for them.

Also why secrecy is used, they don't want people learning what they do, not only because nobody will give them action on a bet, they won't be able to hustle, but they think people will be like them and make it tougher for them to skim off the people that don't know.

Also the Hustlers would never take a loss, if they started to lose even a little they would not play, if they never allowed losing money, they would make more money in the end, so even while playing they had nothing they would be willing to lose to anyone anyways. If you think of life as game metaphor, many of them aren't even players. Since they will only play if they can take from a person below them. They farm the blues and greens and do not get any experience.

Again just a metaphor, they are out there taking from people that don't fight back, or want the world to be better, they never went out and slew a dragon to help the people, they take from the people. Again just a metaphor, and what you think fighting is, but might be understood by some. A bit cannibalistic don't you think.

It actually is not anything that special, saw same thing in poker games and pool halls.



Side note, when I played pool, I always explained that I was pretty good at pool and would win, then if they wanted to play for money, I would. Only someone of ego would jump in, and someone that wanted money. Although I did lose as much as I won in concepts of money, it was never really about the money. Much of the time, depending who playing, I didn't want to take the persons money, sometimes I did, and I had no problem playing against better players, since it was not about the money. Got some good experience in those games though, even when not winning money.