Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH - Wednesday, 11 January 2012 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)9. Finally, a Judge Stands up to Wall Street MATT TAIBBI NOVEMBER
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/finally-a-judge-stands-up-to-wall-street-20111110#ixzz1dNpu8bbF
Federal judge Jed Rakoff, a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorneys office here in New York, is fast becoming a sort of legal hero of our time. He showed that again... when he shat all over the SECs latest dirty settlement with serial fraud offender Citigroup, refusing to let the captured regulatory agency sweep yet another case of high-level criminal malfeasance under the rug.
The SEC had brought an action against Citigroup for misleading investors about the way a certain package of mortgage-backed assets had been chosen. The case is very similar to the notorious Abacus case involving Goldman Sachs, in which Goldman allowed short-selling billionaire John Paulson (who was betting against the package) to pick the assets, then told a pair of European banks that the designed to fail package they were buying had been put together independently. This case was similar, but worse. Here, Citi similarly told investors a package of mortgages had been chosen independently, when in fact Citi itself had chosen the stuff and was betting against the whole pile. This whole transaction actually combined a number of Goldman-style misdeeds, since the bank both lied to investors and also bet against its own product and its own customers. In the deal, Citi made a $160 million profit, while its customers lost $700 million.
Goldman, in the Abacus case, got fined $550 million. In this worse case, the SEC was trying to settle with Citi for just $285 million. Judge Rakoff balked at the settlement and particularly balked at the SECs decision to allow Citi off without any admission of wrongdoing. He also mocked the SECs decision to describe the crime as negligence instead of intentional fraud, taking the entirely rational position that theres no way a bank making $160 million ripping off its customers can conceivably be described as an accident.
Federal judge Jed Rakoff, a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorneys office here in New York, is fast becoming a sort of legal hero of our time. He showed that again... when he shat all over the SECs latest dirty settlement with serial fraud offender Citigroup, refusing to let the captured regulatory agency sweep yet another case of high-level criminal malfeasance under the rug.
The SEC had brought an action against Citigroup for misleading investors about the way a certain package of mortgage-backed assets had been chosen. The case is very similar to the notorious Abacus case involving Goldman Sachs, in which Goldman allowed short-selling billionaire John Paulson (who was betting against the package) to pick the assets, then told a pair of European banks that the designed to fail package they were buying had been put together independently. This case was similar, but worse. Here, Citi similarly told investors a package of mortgages had been chosen independently, when in fact Citi itself had chosen the stuff and was betting against the whole pile. This whole transaction actually combined a number of Goldman-style misdeeds, since the bank both lied to investors and also bet against its own product and its own customers. In the deal, Citi made a $160 million profit, while its customers lost $700 million.
Goldman, in the Abacus case, got fined $550 million. In this worse case, the SEC was trying to settle with Citi for just $285 million. Judge Rakoff balked at the settlement and particularly balked at the SECs decision to allow Citi off without any admission of wrongdoing. He also mocked the SECs decision to describe the crime as negligence instead of intentional fraud, taking the entirely rational position that theres no way a bank making $160 million ripping off its customers can conceivably be described as an accident.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
i'm glad it's better today -- but yeesh -- that's awful to have to go through that. nt
xchrom
Jan 2012
#59
How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the OWS Protests MATT TIABBI MUST READ
Demeter
Jan 2012
#8
Predicting the Euro's Demise: To Those Who Got it Right, We Salute You! By Mitch Green
Demeter
Jan 2012
#12
I disgree. The infection mutated, widely, amongst the "chosen" few doing "gods' work", whatever the
Ghost Dog
Jan 2012
#65