U.S. judge asks: Why haven't the financial executives been prosecuted? http://www.latimes.com/busin

[mikexmoran]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-judge-20131230,0,4386369.story#axzz2pGKmwR63

Just read this and it hit a cord. Judicial behavoir aside, I do think there is a lack of political will to prosecute individuals who were very aware that they were harming people.

I'm a free market supporter and you can accuse me of even being a Supply-Sider. I think it is fraudulent for unions to engage in collective bargaining with elected officials, or people appointed by elected officials. On the other side of the coin, I also think that corporations should not be as shielded as they are. One would think after Enron and SOX, there would be a greater awareness of accountability, but perhaps it is just human nature. I'm disappointed in the government not prosecuting people who are reckless with individual's wealth as well as the overall health of the economy. I know it is not popular with many, but I think it is time the pendulum swings and grants more power to the individual (not union) to even the playing field with corporations.

I think we need to prosecute those who knowingly engaged in fraudulent activities, stop wasting taxpayers money with governments engaging in collective bargaining, and address employees rights (ie reviewing at will employment)

 

[Johan]

In 2013, for laundering money from the drugh cartels, HSBC had to pays a $1.000.000.000 fine.
This mays seem huge. But for HSBC, it's nothing : in 2012, their global profit was about $20.000.000.000. The huge fine is only 5% of their global profit. For laundering money from drug cartels...

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

HSBC should have been barred from doing business in the US at the bare minimum but of course they weren't beautiful world we live in.

 

[Mayhem]

Keep in mind that much like Big Tobacco, this is a war of lawyers and lawyers are the one area where the US government is hopelessly outgunned. It's a unicorns and leprechauns wish of mine that the legal system gets overhauled to where the number of lawyers that you employ doesnt affect the time it takes to go to trial, conduct the trial or the outcome of the trial.

 

[Rey C.]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-judge-20131230,0,4386369.story#axzz2pGKmwR63

Just read this and it hit a cord. Judicial behavoir aside, I do think there is a lack of political will to prosecute individuals who were very aware that they were harming people.

I'm a free market supporter and you can accuse me of even being a Supply-Sider. I think it is fraudulent for unions to engage in collective bargaining with elected officials, or people appointed by elected officials. On the other side of the coin, I also think that corporations should not be as shielded as they are. One would think after Enron and SOX, there would be a greater awareness of accountability, but perhaps it is just human nature. I'm disappointed in the government not prosecuting people who are reckless with individual's wealth as well as the overall health of the economy. I know it is not popular with many, but I think it is time the pendulum swings and grants more power to the individual (not union) to even the playing field with corporations.

I think we need to prosecute those who knowingly engaged in fraudulent activities, stop wasting taxpayers money with governments engaging in collective bargaining, and address employees rights (ie reviewing at will employment)

Excellent, rep-worthy post, Mike.

Since there have been no prosecutions of high level executives (only relatively low level mortgage brokers and bankers, appraisers and some purchasers), I'm inclined to believe that neither the Obama Administration nor the Republicans in Congress want to see high level individuals prosecuted. Both sides get major donations from these people and no one wants to offend or jeopardize the flow of money that they get from them. Why hasn't Lloyd Blankfein been charged with anything? To even seriously ask that question would make me seem naive. Better to just let the DoJ tag the parent corporations, that these executives work for, with a fat fine and make the shareholders foot the bill for the criminal misconduct of those executives. That's all that has happened. In fact, Eric Holder has pretty much said that he's not going to go after these folks - only the companies. IMO, he is the Democrat's version of Ed Meese. Much of my dissatisfaction with the current direction of our criminal justice system has to do with Holder's weak, greasy-palmed leadership at DoJ. I'm sure there are others, but I think Attorney General Holder, Mary Schapiro (at the SEC) and Kathleen Sebelius (at HHS) are in the running as Obama's weakest/worst appointments.

Here's a good one, since the HSBC money laundering case has been brought up. Do you all remember how the FBI was able to track a small denomination money order ($50, I think) from an individual in the U.S. to a member of Al Qaeda after 9/11? So could someone explain to me why it's so hard to find more of the multi-billion dollar fund transfers that are at the core of the many, many money laundering schemes that took place... and still take place??? Why doesn't the U.S. declare the Mexican Mafia or the Zetas to be narco-terrorists and seize their money and make (especially) U.S. bankers do the perp walk when they are found to have engaged in money laundering schemes?

Lastly, did anyone (within the bank) go to jail over the HSBC money laundering scheme? How about the Bank of America one? Any of the others? No. And if there had been a Republican in office, he wouldn't have gone after them either - maybe less. There is an unwritten rule about who we send to jail in this country and who we do not send to jail. And if you want to hold office here, you have to learn to follow the rules.

 

[mikexmoran]

Excellent, rep-worthy post, Mike.

Since there have been no prosecutions of high level executives (only relatively low level mortgage brokers and bankers, appraisers and some purchasers), I'm inclined to believe that neither the Obama Administration nor the Republicans in Congress want to see high level individuals prosecuted. Both sides get major donations from these people and no one wants to offend or jeopardize the flow of money that they get from them. Why hasn't Lloyd Blankfein been charged with anything? To even seriously ask that question would make me seem naive. Better to just let the DoJ tag the parent corporations, that these executives work for, with a fat fine and make the shareholders foot the bill for the criminal misconduct of those executives. That's all that has happened. In fact, Eric Holder has pretty much said that he's not going to go after these folks - only the companies. IMO, he is the Democrat's version of Ed Meese. Much of my dissatisfaction with the current direction of our criminal justice system has to do with Holder's weak, greasy-palmed leadership at DoJ. I'm sure there are others, but I think Attorney General Holder, Mary Schapiro (at the SEC) and Kathleen Sebelius (at HHS) are in the running as Obama's weakest/worst appointments.

Here's a good one, since the HSBC money laundering case has been brought up. Do you all remember how the FBI was able to track a small denomination money order ($50, I think) from an individual in the U.S. to a member of Al Qaeda after 9/11? So could someone explain to me why it's so hard to find more of the multi-billion dollar fund transfers that are at the core of the many, many money laundering schemes that took place... and still take place??? Why doesn't the U.S. declare the Mexican Mafia or the Zetas to be narco-terrorists and seize their money and make (especially) U.S. bankers do the perp walk when they are found to have engaged in money laundering schemes?

Lastly, did anyone (within the bank) go to jail over the HSBC money laundering scheme? How about the Bank of America one? Any of the others? No. And if there had been a Republican in office, he wouldn't have gone after them either - maybe less. There is an unwritten rule about who we send to jail in this country and who we do not send to jail. And if you want to hold office here, you have to learn to follow the rules.

Yes. It would be reasonable to think that a Congressman or Senator could make their career prosecuting executives for fraud. So, why wouldn't they?

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Yes. It would be reasonable to think that a Congressman or Senator could make their career prosecuting executives for fraud. So, why wouldn't they?

Because this same company/bank probably financed 99% of their elections.