Showing posts with label Huff Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huff Post. Show all posts

Friday, August 17, 2012

Goldman Sachs Will Not Face Criminal Charges: Justice Department



Reuters  |  Posted:  Updated: 08/10/2012 12:22 pm

* DOJ says could not meet criminal burden of proof

* Decision follows more than a year of investigation

* Senator Levin had asked for criminal investigation

By David Ingram and Aruna Viswanatha

WASHINGTON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said it will not pursue criminal charges against Goldman Sachs Group Inc or its employees related to accusations that the firm bet against the same subprime mortgage securities it was selling to clients.

The decision not to prosecute Goldman, a firm held up by critics as a symbol of Wall Street greed during the 2007-2009 financial crisis, highlights the difficulty in prosecuting crisis-related cases.

Few expected the bank to face criminal charges, but in April 2011, U.S. Senator Carl Levin asked for a criminal investigation after the subcommittee he leads spent more than a year looking into Goldman.

The accusations were aired in a heated 2010 Congressional hearing in which Levin grilled Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein for hours about whether it was morally correct for the firm to sell its clients products described internally as "crap".

"The department and investigative agencies ultimately concluded that the burden of proof to bring a criminal case could not be met based on the law and facts as they exist at this time," the Justice Department said in a statement late on Thursday.

The DOJ does not typically make public statements when it concludes an investigation.

Neil Barofsky, a former watchdog for the U.S. government's financial system bailout in 2008, said the announcement was a stark reminder that no individual or institution had been held meaningfully accountable for their role in the financial crisis.

"Without such accountability, the unending parade of megabanks scandals will inevitably continue," said Barofsky, who has been an outspoken critic of the government's response to the financial crisis.

In a brief statement emailed to Reuters, a Goldman Sachs spokesman said: "We are pleased that this matter is behind us."

A Levin aide had no immediate comment.

In a related civil case, Goldman settled with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for $550 million in July 2010, without admitting wrongdoing.

The SEC, in one of its premier financial crisis cases, said Goldman failed to tell investors the Paulson & Co hedge fund helped choose and bet against the subprime mortgage-backed securities underlying an investment product named Abacus.

The SEC is still pursuing a civil complaint against Fabrice Tourre, a Goldman vice president involved in the Abacus deal.

Separately on Thursday, Goldman said the SEC had dropped an investigation into the firm's role in selling a different $1.3 billion subprime mortgage-related deal arranged in 2006.

TARNISHED REPUTATION

The Abacus deal was a major focus of the televised hearings held by Levin's subcommittee in 2010. The hearings and a following report from Levin's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations weighed on Goldman's shares as the firm suffered a reputational hit from the unwelcome spotlight.

Goldman -- dubbed a "great vampire squid" in a 2009 article in Rolling Stone magazine -- has continued to be dogged by criticism, including from its own ranks.

A Goldman Sachs banker in March published a withering resignation letter in the New York Times, calling the Wall Street titan a "toxic" place.

In its release on Thursday, the Justice Department said there was "not a viable basis to bring a criminal prosecution" against Goldman. If new or additional evidence emerged, it could make a different determination, it said.

Prosecuting financial fraud would continue to be a top priority and it highlighted other investigations, including its probe into banks' alleged manipulation of Libor, a widely used benchmark for interest rates.

The SEC has brought a handful of high-profile cases related to the financial crisis, including against former Countrywide Financial Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo and its case against Goldman. But the Justice Department has struggled to bring criminal charges.

The frustration, in part, has been because such charges involve securing evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant intended to break the law.

For example, a federal jury in 2009 acquitted two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers accused of continuing to push souring investments as sound.

Jurors said prosecutors did not prove the case, which relied on e-mail evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Since then, the Justice Department has brought few major prosecutions tied to the subprime crisis.

In January, President Barack Obama announced a new task force to investigate misconduct that fueled the financial crisis, and the Justice Department has said it has issued more than a dozen civil subpoenas and has multiple inquiries underway.

So far, no cases have come out of that effort, and some critics have dismissed the task force as an election-year stunt.
Goldman doesn't have a great reputation, here are some other companies with bad reps:
11 Companies With Bad Reputations
1 of 12

Sunday, August 5, 2012

London Whale Bruno Iksil Was Urged On By Supervisor Javier Martin-Artajo: Reports


The Huffington Post  |  By  Posted:  Updated: 08/03/2012 11:56 am
London Whale
Bruno Iksil, the JPMorgan Chase trader known as the "London whale," was reportedly urged by his supervisor, Javier Martin-Artajo, to inflate the value of his losing trades.
Everyone has a boss, even the London whale.
Sources close to the investigation of JPMorgan Chase's $5.8 billion trading losssay the man made notorious by the episode -- Bruno Iksil, a JPMorgan trader known as the "London whale" for the huge positions he would take -- was urged by his supervisor, Javier Martin-Artajo, to overvalue the trades that ultimately produced the losses, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Martin-Artajo was until recently the credit-trading chief for JPMorgan's Chief Investment Office, the unit where the losses originated. Martin-Artajo and Iksil bothleft JPMorgan in July, and the company reclaimed about two years' worth of compensation from each man.
Attorneys for both men have denied any wrongdoing by their clients.
The Chief Investment Office reportedly operated under a set of rules and risk controls that were looser than those used elsewhere at the bank. The office reported directly to CEO Jamie Dimon and was supervised less closely than other JPMorgan units,according to the Associated Press.
Dimon, who recently bought 360,000 shares of JPMorgan stock, infamously described the London losses as "a complete tempest in a teapot" in April, although he was reportedly aware at the time that the bank was in a position to lose as much as $1 billion.
Other executives at JPMorgan have been caught up in the scandal. Ina Drew, the bank's former chief investment officer and supervisor of CIO, resigned in May. Drew originally received a pay package worth about $57 million, though JPMorgan later announced it would claw back about two years' worth of Drew's compensation, according to Bloomberg. Last week, JPMorgan announced it would reorganize the entire institution in an apparent effort to create more safeguards against future losses.
JPMorgan's whale fail and other big bank disasters: 
JPMorgan Whale Fail And Nine Other Big Bank Disasters
10 of 11
×Sort by Ranking
AP
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
RELATED ON HUFFPOST:

Thursday, July 12, 2012

The Wall Street Scandal of all Scandals


Source: The Huffington Post

By Robert Reich
July 9, 2012
Just when you thought Wall Street couldn't sink any lower - when its myriad abuses of public trust have already spread a miasma of cynicism over the entire economic system, giving birth to Tea Partiers and Occupiers and all manner of conspiracy theories; when its excesses have already wrought havoc with the lives of millions of Americans, causing taxpayers to shell out billions (of which only a portion has been repaid) even as its top executives are back to making more money than ever; when its vast political power (via campaign contributions) has already eviscerated much of the Dodd-Frank law that was supposed to rein it in, including the so-called "Volker" Rule that was sold as a milder version of the old Glass-Steagall Act that used to separate investment from commercial banking - yes, just when you thought the Street had hit bottom, an even deeper level of public-be-damned greed and corruption is revealed.
Sit down and hold on to your chair.
What's the most basic service banks provide? Borrow money and lend it out. You put your savings in a bank to hold in trust, and the bank agrees to pay you interest on it. Or you borrow money from the bank and you agree to pay the bank interest.
How is this interest rate determined? We trust that the banking system is setting today's rate based on its best guess about the future worth of the money. And we assume that guess is based, in turn, on the cumulative market predictions of countless lenders and borrowers all over the world about the future supply and demand for the dough.
But suppose our assumption is wrong. Suppose the bankers are manipulating the interest rate so they can place bets with the money you lend or repay them - bets that will pay off big for them because they have inside information on what the market is really predicting, which they're not sharing with you.