Just Fine: Don’t Bank on the Justice Department to Prosecute Big Banks

DeptofJusticeSubmitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Last December, I wrote a post titled You Call This Justice? DOJ Criticized for Its Settlement with “Too Big to Jail” Bank HSBC. It appears that the US Justice Department isn’t too keen on bringing criminal charges against ANY wealthy bankers—not just those who work for HSBC, a huge international bank that has knowingly laundered money for drug cartels and murderers. The unethical shenanigans of the banksters of Wall Street that led to the near collapse of the US economy and to a recession don’t seem to merit jail time for the perpetrators—just a slap on the wrist and a fine.  No individual fines are paid though. The mega banks pay the fines and the banksters continue to go about their business…and continue to earn hefty salaries and bonuses.

At “Wall Street Reform: Oversight of Financial Stability and Consumer and Investor Protections,” the first Banking Committee hearing attended by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA), Warren asked bank regulators how tough they really are on the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street and about the last few times they actually took any banks all the way to a trial.

A few weeks ago, Bill Moyers sat down with Matt Taibbi to talk about the HSBC settlement, UBS and the Libor Scandal, Lanny Breuer, Mary Jo White, and the revolving door in Washington, D.C.

Not long after Taibbi’s appearance on Bill Moyers’s program, his article on HSBC , Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail, was published in Rolling Stone.

Quoting from Taibbi’s article:

For at least half a decade, the storied British colonial banking power helped to wash hundreds of millions of dollars for drug mobs, including Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel, suspected in tens of thousands of murders just in the past 10 years – people so totally evil, jokes former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, that “they make the guys on Wall Street look good.” The bank also moved money for organizations linked to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and for Russian gangsters; helped countries like Iran, the Sudan and North Korea evade sanctions; and, in between helping murderers and terrorists and rogue states, aided countless common tax cheats in hiding their cash.

“They violated every goddamn law in the book,” says Jack Blum, an attorney and former Senate investigator who headed a major bribery investigation against Lockheed in the 1970s that led to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. “They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit business.”

That nobody from the bank went to jail or paid a dollar in individual fines is nothing new in this era of financial crisis. What is different about this settlement is that the Justice Department, for the first time, admitted why it decided to go soft on this particular kind of criminal. It was worried that anything more than a wrist slap for HSBC might undermine the world economy. “Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, “HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.”

It was the dawn of a new era. In the years just after 9/11, even being breathed on by a suspected terrorist could land you in extralegal detention for the rest of your life. But now, when you’re Too Big to Jail, you can cop to laundering terrorist cash and violating the Trading With the Enemy Act, and not only will you not be prosecuted for it, but the government will go out of its way to make sure you won’t lose your license. Some on the Hill put it to me this way: OK, fine, no jail time, but they can’t even pull their charter? Are you kidding?

But the Justice Department wasn’t finished handing out Christmas goodies. A little over a week later, Breuer was back in front of the press, giving a cushy deal to another huge international firm, the Swiss bank UBS, which had just admitted to a key role in perhaps the biggest antitrust/price-fixing case in history, the so-called LIBOR scandal, a massive interest-rate­rigging conspiracy involving hundreds of trillions (“trillions,” with a “t”) of dollars in financial products. While two minor players did face charges, Breuer and the Justice Department worried aloud about global stability as they explained why no criminal charges were being filed against the parent company.

“Our goal here,” Breuer said, “is not to destroy a major financial institution.”

A reporter at the UBS presser pointed out to Breuer that UBS had already been busted in 2009 in a major tax-evasion case, and asked a sensible question. “This is a bank that has broken the law before,” the reporter said. “So why not be tougher?”

“I don’t know what tougher means,” answered the assistant attorney general.

Taibbi added that the Justice Department’s recent $1.9 billion settlement with HSBC was the big bank’s “third strike.”

In late January, PBS aired a Frontline program titled The Untouchables. The following day, David Sirota of Salon wrote about the program. Sirota called it a “stunning report” that exposed how the Obama administration deals with the malfeasance of the bankers on Wall Street.

Quoting Sirota:

PBS Frontline’s stunning report last night on why the Obama administration has refused to prosecute any Wall Streeter involved in the financial meltdown doesn’t just implicitly indict a political and financial press that utterly abdicated its responsibility to cover such questions. It also — and as importantly — exposes the genuinely radical jurisprudential ideology that Wall Street campaign contributors have baked into America’s “justice” system. Indeed, after watching the piece, you will understand that the word “justice” belongs in quotes thanks to an Obama administration that has made a mockery of the name of a once hallowed executive department…

The piece by PBS reporter Martin Smith looks at how Obama has driven federal prosecutions of financial crimes down to a two-decade low. It also documents the rampant and calculated mortgage securities fraud perpetrated by the major Wall Street banks, who, not coincidentally, were using some of the profits they made to become among President Obama’s biggest campaign donors.

As we see, that campaign money didn’t just buy massive government bailouts of the banks, a pathetically weak Wall Street “reform” bill or explicit reassurances from Obama’s campaign that the president would refrain from criticizing bankers. Frontline shows it also bought a Too Big to Jail ideology publicly championed by the white-collar defense lawyer turned Obama prosecutor Lanny Breuer.

I recommend watching Frontline’s The Untouchables. It’s nearly 54-minutes long. Here’s the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail
 How HSBC hooked up with drug traffickers and terrorists. And got away with it (Rolling Stone)

Justice Department’s New Get-Tough Policy Is, Well, Not (Rolling Stone)

Choice of Mary Jo White to Head SEC Puts Fox In Charge of Hen House (Rolling Stone)

Are banks too big to jail?: PBS Frontline’s stunning report shows how the Obama administration undermined the rule of law (Salon)

Why Mary Jo White is the wrong pick for the SEC (CNN Money)

Jack Lew and the Obama Administration’s Finance-Friendly Status Quo (The Daily Beast)

Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer Speaks at the New York City Bar Association–Thursday, September 13, 2012 (The United States Justice Department)

109 thoughts on “Just Fine: Don’t Bank on the Justice Department to Prosecute Big Banks”

  1. 9/11 was an inside job. There is plenty of evidence. Don’t count on the judicial system in this country. You’re running in circles.

  2. This is really serious! DOJ attorney David Rybicki filed in federal court that the DOJ Prisoner Tracking System doesn’t require a criminal charge. Then twice he filed that the DOJ Joint Automated Booking System doesn’t require a criminal charge. Also he claimed there is no right to a bail hearing if not charged with a crime. Rybicki made these misrepresentations to get my claims dismissed, because I am powerless etc. But it reads as a crime —

    Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; …. Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    18 USC § 1506 – Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail

  3. kay sieverding 1, February 24, 2013 at 9:53 pm

    But OPR attorney William Birney emailed to me “it is the longstanding policy of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to decline to investigate litigation claims that have been raised, could have been raised, or still may be raised in litigation.”
    ===========================
    Federal government flatulence.

  4. Well Eric Holder wrote “OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.”
    http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/pmru-creation.pdf

    In its 2011 annual report, OPR wrote “OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of professional misconduct made against Department of Justice attorneys when the allegations relate to the exercise of the attorney’s authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.”

    But OPR attorney William Birney emailed to me “it is the longstanding policy of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to decline to investigate litigation claims that have been raised, could have been raised, or still may be raised in litigation.”

    So how could all be true?

  5. The idea that Citibank pays Jack Lew to get a Federal government job and then Lew becomes Treasury Secretary makes me want to vomit.

  6. I worked with Jack Lew when he was maybe 24 (at the City of Boston) and he seemed super arrogant at the time.

  7. I absolutely don’t trust Eric Holder. Per Kay Sieverding, I searched USDOJ.gov for the Professional Conduct Review Committee and found nothing indicating that they did anything other than collect paychecks.

  8. It’s already in the cards. House of cards. They’re going to continue massive deficit spending until it collapses.

    The debt is already too huge to ever pay off. It’s a mathematical impossibility. They will deal with the debt either through default or hyperinflation.

    The banksters! What kind of cake do they like? How about their minions?

  9. rafflaw,

    “If you or I had consorted with terrorists we would be in a supermax prison.”

    As bettykath said–there are different standards for different folks. Rules is rules–except for the “special
    people.”

  10. Amazing how THIS can go on without any criminal charges ever being levied yet….. a person who is forced at gunpoint by a group of thugs to make a 60k bank wire transfer using a false identity who then reports this incident to six different law enforcement agencies before having a statement taken, can then be indicted by the federal government for felony bank fraud. Talk about a disgusting backwards system! Keep on going.

  11. I thought I was a Democrat and I’m embarrassed to admit that I read Tea Party and libertarian messages but my impression is that all the Democrats in Washington care about is their paychecks. This is after voting Democrat for almost 40 years. I just really don’t trust any of them.

  12. Well what I am wondering is if President Obama, Eric Holder, Machen, Jack Lew etc. are actually acting totally cynically just for their personal financial benefit. I thought the idea that Citibank gave Jack Lew a bonus because he got a job with the Federal government was very disturbing.

  13. different standards for different folks. they’re just rubbing our noses in it. it’s disgusting.

Comments are closed.