Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Whatta Joke! Civil case against banksters? Not Criminal?

Posted 5 years ago on Oct. 9, 2012, 4:02 p.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 5 years ago

Agree. Civil case amounts to nothing. It might help if executives of corporations did not enjoy limited immunity, and could be sued directly for bad behavior.

We need to see criminal charges.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Put some of these execs in jail and take all their money see how quick they start behaving ethically.


[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 5 years ago

Who ???


Mortgage brokers and the enablers stole $2.1-trillion.

Bankers used bribery-driven "AAA" ratings to generate 1,500 faked "prime" bonds, plus the derivatives scmas. They stole $5.2-trillion through summer of 2011.

What you like for targets?

The one and only "clean" big bank was JPMC. And they did some of the robo-signing frauds, along with taking on a couple of loser-banks from the Treasury where more had happened before the takeovers. Their crimes were minimal.

Crime is the Achilles heal of capitalism.

And the big guys always pretend that crime doesn't exist.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

JPMC clean? I don't think so.

But as far as who. Any exec involved with all the crimes you listed. And I think maybe we ought to look at politicians as well.

Bankers, brokers, ratings agencies, mtg corps, etc etc

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

From the link>>

Citigroup, Flagstar Bank, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and FBC collectively have repaid the FHA $1 billion following legal settlements in cases similar to the one brought against Wells Fargo.

In this case, federal prosecutors allege that Wells Fargo's brokers issued loans that shouldn't have qualified, and then the bank lied about it to the government. The lawsuit also alleges that Wells Fargo's bonus incentive plan, which rewarded employees based on the sheer number of loans approved, "was an accelerant to a fire already burning, as quality repeatedly took a backseat to quantity." <<End

So the gov gets their money back. And that's as far as it goes?

What about the bonuses paid to the hacks who signed up all those loans that they knew were going to default?

What about all the deposits and payments lost by the former home-owners, who are now set back ten years in their lives, and unlikely to ever get a loan again?

This is one more example of banks being allowed to illegally gamble, without risking actual loss.

All they will have to do is pay back the gov insurer. Whoopee!

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 5 years ago

Good Post

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Like a lot of western governments, they like to appear to be doing something about corruption, but a deeper look reveals it's a token effort only, and nothing really changes.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Civil cases are not enough!!! Perp walks for the execs, & board members,


[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 5 years ago

This is what happens in a dictatorship, seperate rules for those in power. We might not be a military dictatorship yet but we are definately stuck in an economic dictatorship.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

When I see videos of the TSA in action at airports, and hear about drones being used in many places in the US of A, the wiretapping, the imprisonment without trial, the full dictatorship is not far away.

Didn't Shrub 2 state how much easier things would be in a dictatorship?

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 5 years ago

Yes, this is what we are up against.

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 5 years ago

I don't remember that but am not suprised he would be dumb enough to say that.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Apparently he said it twice. Bit of a joke, really.


[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 5 years ago

Our last president in action. I swear the world is looking more likea joke by the day.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

He probably felt the same frustration that the current prez is feeling, being blocked in the senate and congress.


[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 5 years ago
  1. Civil cases are easier to win. Much easier.

  2. You get a discovery period where related evidence can be examined. Attacking a corporation, that is punitive in and of itself.

  3. With a civil suit you get to take depositions. That never happens with criminal cases.

Get real, kiddos.

The missing link is suing under the RICO civil suit clauses. Martha Coakley showed how to do it.

Nobody's got the balls.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

We still have time to bring criminal cases. Do you support that? Should we make the laws stronger against individual execs.? Should we replace the funding cut (by congress) from fed prosecution of fin crimes?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Bill Black feels the same way. He has a lot of articles and is on videos. Here one that fits with your Post.



http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04232010/profile.html Video with Moyers on "If you go back to the savings and loan debacle, we got more than a thousand felony convictions of the elite. These are not, you know, tellers or something. We today have zero convictions, zero indictments, zero arrests of any of the elite, non-prime lenders that, through their fraud, drove this crisis."

Quote: It has nothing to do with the buyer being dumb. Any buyer would have wanted to know that this portfolio was set up to fail. That would have been material information within the language of the securities laws. And they were not only not told that, they were told the opposite, that it was picked so that it would succeed. That, if it's true, is a misrepresentation, or in English, a lie. And that would establish securities fraud. And that, by the way, is a felony, not just a civil wrong.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Excellent thanks.

It's a profound disappointment that we have failed to prosecute. Clearly the 1% oligarchs have a strangle hold over out politicians. They've changed laws to limit personal responsibility, and to make harder to prove criminal guilt, they've also convinced pols to cut funding for fin crime prosecution.

Our pols are bought and sold. I'm surprised they are pursueing any cases. I mean there has been almost nothing even with this weak effort.

We must protest for all this. Grow a movement of outraged 99%'rs. And pressure for stronger laws, funding prosecutors, and indicting fin criminals.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

There was a recent case prosecuted that was like 10-12 years old. The CEO refused to take a differed prosecution for the third time... and he was a fringe banker, like he is small time, so Bill Black was saying ... Holder was bending over backwards to avoid prosecution and kind of was forced to prosecute since the excecutive made a big deal out of it. I think it was a Bill Black Video or Maybe Inside Job or The Warning.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yes, bankers are the ones that least need a bail out.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

They have too much control & power.

We need a public option in banking! That'll learn 'em!

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Oops I started a new Thread Post about Bill Black. Oh well. Everyone should learn about Bill Black. Thanks. I see some new ones on your pages.