Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Criticized for letting Wall Street off the hook after the financial crisis, the Justice Department is building a new model for prosecuting big banks. In a recent round of actions that shook the financial industry, the government pushed for guilty pleas, rather than just the usual fines and reforms. Prosecutors now aim to apply the approach broadly to financial fraud cases, according to officials involved in the investigations. Lawyers for several big banks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they were already adjusting their defenses and urging banks to fire employees suspected of wrongdoing in the hope of appeasing authorities.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

726

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The Justice Department plans to continue the campaign as it pursues guilty pleas from other bank subsidiaries suspected of reporting false interest rates, according to the prosecutors and the lawyers who requested anonymity to discuss the cases. Authorities are scrutinizing Citigroup, whose Japanese unit is suspected of rate manipulation, and prosecutors recently accused one former trader there of colluding with other banks in a vast rate-rigging conspiracy.

Prosecutors want the rate-rigging investigation to serve as a template for other financial fraud cases. Two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described a plan to eventually wring an admission of guilt from an entire bank.

"This Department of Justice will continue to hold financial institutions that break the law criminally responsible," Lanny A. Breuer, the departing head of the agency's criminal division, said in an interview.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

It's about frigging time. I haven't been too impressed up to now.

#1 | Posted by cbob at 2013-02-19 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Criticized for letting Wall Street off the hook after the financial crisis, the Justice Department is building a new model for prosecuting big banks"

I'm feeling some heat, so I have to pretend to do something.
--Barack Obama

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-19 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

You rob a bank, jail for you.

Bank robs society, free billions in bail outs for you.

#3 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2013-02-19 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hilarious, nothing but a press release....

Knowing Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, were partners at a law firm that had a WhosWho of clients in the banking industry.... yeah prosecutions are coming soon....
www.reuters.com

One would think that would be a money maker for the firm? The DOJ and Covington & Burling could drag this on for 4 years.... everyone wins .... even the banks..

Heck the shakedown king, Jesse Jackson would do it!

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-02-19 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

DOJ gets some prosecutions, some big fines and has banks firing people rather than go to court, and all the whiners can do is... whine.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-19 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

This Department of Justice will continue to hold financial institutions that break the law criminally responsible," Lanny A. Breuer, the departing head of the agency's criminal division, said in an interview.

Yeah, and monkeys will fly out of O's butt.
This just lets the lawyers get a piece of the pie.

#6 | Posted by Whizzo at 2013-02-19 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But...but...we're Obama donors!!!!"

#7 | Posted by JROD at 2013-02-19 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a necessary part of any real recovery. There is the little problem of statute of limitations and already completed settlements, wherin Banks paid 5 cents in fines for every dollar in fraudulently gained profits.

#8 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-02-19 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

To little to late buuuuuuut .... here's hoping for the future.

#9 | Posted by Tor at 2013-02-19 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Business as usual in the USA. Put small time pot users in jail but let criminal bankers who defrauded us out of millions go free. We worship those who take millions from society and don't pay anything back.

A real country would not let this happen.

#10 | Posted by TurnLeftb42late at 2013-02-19 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

DOJ May Prosecute Banksters

So far, the Justice Department has extracted guilty pleas only from remote subsidiaries of big foreign banks, a move that has inflicted reputational damage but little else.

Bwahahahahaha !

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-19 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Next, they'll make drug-money laundering a crime, as well as setting up subsidiaries to evade sanctions on countries like Iran.

Not. Holding. My. Breath.

(I'm looking at you, HSBC)

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-02-19 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Be still my heart.

I'll believe it when I see it.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-19 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But...but...we're Obama donors!!!!"

#7 | Posted by JROD

They were in the first election, and it bought them freedom.

This time they backed Romney, now we'll see if they actually pay the piper.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-02-19 08:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

If your bank is big enough to manipulate the LIBOR rate, that's the problem in the first place. And government created that problem, and prefers it because they feel it's easier to audit a handful of banks rather than thousands of them. Plus, the revolving door from Treasury and Commerce into the boardrooms of the banking industry is much more lucrative when the banks are trillion-dollar enterprises, rather than First National Bank of Podunk.

So, the libbies get their big headlines to pretend Obama is pretending to do something, the banks are able to pretend the same, and more and more concentrated deposits for everyone else which fund investment banking activity with taxpayer-guaranteed funds.

#15 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-19 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So, the libbies get their big headlines to pretend Obama is pretending to do something..."
#15 | Posted by uglyblinddate

Do please tell us how aggressively conservatives would be going after banks if they had won the white house.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-02-19 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hopefully, they would have shut down Fannie and Freddie and the FHA for good, set deposit concentration limitations on all financial institutions, removed the capital requirements increases for accredited investor status, and codified into law once and for all that taxpayer funds would never be used for any purpose to rescue a bank in trouble but would instead be used to wind down a bank through bankruptcy instead.

I don't know if they would have, though. I just know that liberals never will. As long as New York, Delaware, and Connecticut remain the world headquarters for too-big-to-fail, and as long as their Congressional delegations are liberal democrats, the DNC will never, EVER do anything about the big banks.

#17 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-19 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

DOJ May Prosecute Banksters = cold day in hell
.

#18 | Posted by CalifChris at 2013-02-19 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

as long as their Congressional delegations are liberal democrats, the DNC will never, EVER do anything about the big banks.

#17 | Posted by uglyblinddate

And as long as the repub party is the billionaire party, they'll never go after banks. Hell they'd love to even keep you from voting if youre not rich.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-02-19 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

LMAO. You're funny.

#20 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-19 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speaksoftly,

You can't argue with anything ubd said and claiming, "the gop is still worse" is weaksauce. This would be the same with congressional delegations from Conn. And Iowa which are the insurance hubs in this country.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-19 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Criticized for letting Wall Street off the hook after the financial crisis..."

The crisis created by the government.

#22 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-20 01:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bank robs society, free billions in bail outs for you.

#3 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

You need to clear some of that juice from your brain.

The banks don't rob the people. Congress gives the banks the peopel's money. There is a huge difference. The government is the BAD guy in this situation.

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-20 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly snipe, its the regulators and polt.s that are escaping and accountability whatsoever.

Also I do find it amusing how bho has let Warren buffet and bank America off the hook!!!

The Buffett rule.....he with money males the rules.

#24 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-20 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll believe that politicians will prosecute bankers once I actually see high level executives at the big investment banks actually go on trial. Until then, it is empty talk.

#25 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-02-20 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

KEYWORD MAY:

as in, if I am bored I MAY set my hair on fire with aquanet. but then again, I MAY come to my senses and MAY not.

#26 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2013-02-20 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

The crisis created by the government.

#22 | Posted by Diablo

The crisis was created by the government being CAPTURED by the bankers. The government is the only force that can actually protect us from the bankers, but first we have to get them OUT of our government. This can only be done through PUBLIC ELECTION FINANCING - the first step to solving ALL of our problems.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-02-20 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

The banks don't rob the people. Congress gives the banks the peopel's money. There is a huge difference. The government is the BAD guy in this situation.

#23 | Posted by Sniper

The problem isn't that we have a government. It's that our election system makes politicians do what banks what instead of what citizens want. Fix it with public election financing, admit that corporations aren't people, and suddenly everything becomes solvable.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-02-20 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So, the libbies get their big headlines to pretend Obama is pretending to do something..."
#15 | Posted by uglyblinddate
Do please tell us how aggressively conservatives would be going after banks if they had won the white house.
#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-02-19 08:46 PM

They would undoubtedly set traps to prosecute whistleblowers while simultaneously omitting all trading information from the record and inventing another offshore loophole for themselves.

#29 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-02-20 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, and privatize the courts.

#30 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2013-02-20 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29 too true. Unfortunately, Obama's pursuit of whistleblowers has been disgusting as well. Plutocrats own both parties, the republicans just enjoy it more.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-02-20 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

The government is the only force that can actually protect us from the bankers, but first we have to get them OUT of our government. This can only be done through PUBLIC ELECTION FINANCING - the first step to solving ALL of our problems.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

It ain't the election financing that's the problem, it's all the perks they end up getting from the government and the people they write the laws for that are the problem.

How do you think humpin harry became a millionaire?

#32 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-20 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

It ain't the election financing that's the problem, it's all the perks they end up getting from the government and the people they write the laws for that are the problem.

How do you think humpin harry became a millionaire?

#32 | Posted by Sniper

But those perks are a RESULT of our election financing. They get the perks in exchange for campaign contributions. If campaigns didn't need private money, they wouldnt have to hand out private perks. Legislators would be working for those that vote for them instead of those that fund their campaigns. Therefore election financing is CLEARLY the problem and public financing is clearly the solution.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2013-02-20 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Business as usual in the USA. Put small time pot users in jail but let criminal bankers who defrauded us out of millions go free. We worship those who take millions from society and don't pay anything back."

How much money did you lose?

And it's important to remember the architects of the housing crisis as well. Namely Barney Frank. But I'm betting there won't even be a harsh word for that bum...Or a word of praise for Bush, who stood at odds with Frank in 2003 by trying to tighten up the lending requirements for Fannie Mae.

"If your bank is big enough to manipulate the LIBOR rate, that's the problem in the first place. And government created that problem, and prefers it because they feel it's easier to audit a handful of banks rather than thousands of them. Plus, the revolving door from Treasury and Commerce into the boardrooms of the banking industry is much more lucrative when the banks are trillion-dollar enterprises, rather than First National Bank of Podunk."

If a dog poops in your yard, do you blame the dog, or the owner. The banks that engaged in risky lending practices did so with the consent of government. These big banks are one of the primary tools that government can use to manipulate society. That's why the got a bailout. Had they not bailed them out, what incentive would there have been in the future to support any ideologically driven plans proposed by government?

"Plutocrats own both parties, the republicans just enjoy it more."

Who do you think would have been more in favor of seeing Fannie and Freddie fail as a result of their misconduct, Dems or Repubs? I don't wholly disagree with you, but it was a progressive agenda of loosening restrictions on mortgage lending that created the problem. The banks should have told them to either kick rocks (which probably would have resulted in all sorts of trouble) or been allowed to fail. What the government has effectively done is remove a moral hazard that would have previously served to temper the desire to make money with the knowledge that a bad investment might ruin them and their company.

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-20 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement