Submitted 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)
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)
Matt Taibbi & William Black on Bailout Secrets & How New Foreclosure Deal Spares Banks From Justice
Democracy Now
1/13/13
Summary:
Four years after the massive bailout that rescued Wall Street, we look at the state of the financial sector with Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi and former financial regulator William Black. In a new article for Rolling Stone, Taibbi argues the government did not just bail out Wall Street, but also lied on the financial sector’s behalf, calling unhealthy banks healthy and helping banks cover up how much aid they were getting. The government’s approach to the banks came under new scrutiny this week after it reached an $8.5 billion settlement for improprieties in the wrongful foreclosures on millions of American homeowners, including flawed paperwork, robo-signing and wrongly modified loans. The settlement will end an independent review of all foreclosures, meaning the banks could be avoiding billions of dollars in further penalties, in addition to criminal prosecution.
“Failure of Epic Proportions”: Treasury Nominee Jack Lew’s Pro-Bank, Austerity, Deregulation Legacy
Democracy Now
1/13/2013
ap,
that is an amazing story about the Citigroup contract term. Would that be one part of a paper trail evidencing corporations intent on stacking the governmental agencies with friendlies?
Jack Lew’s Citigroup Contract Included Incentive To Go Into Government
By: DSWright Monday February 25, 2013 6:00 am
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/02/25/jack-lews-citigroup-contract-included-incentive-to-go-into-government/
http://static1.firedoglake.com/37/files/2013/02/citigrouplewcontracts.png
There may not be anyone left in America that doesn’t know Wall Street sets the agenda in Washington, that the revolving door between finance capital and the so-called regulators of finance capital spins so fast the IAEA should demand inspections. And so we learn that President Obama’s Treasury Secretary nominee not only worked for the Citigroup hedge fund that shorted the housing market, invested in off-shore tax havens, and took a nice bonus from TARP money – he had a provision written into his employment contract that encouraged him to return to government service.
Lew’s employment agreement with Citigroup said his “guaranteed incentive and retention award” wouldn’t be paid if he quit his job, with limited exceptions. One was if he left Citigroup “as a result of your acceptance of a full-time high level position with the United States government or regulatory body.” This applied if he left “prior to the payment of any incentive and retention award for performance year 2008 or thereafter.” Such an award wasn’t guaranteed but would be consistent with the company’s practice, the document said…
When I asked Citigroup what its rationale was for including the government-service exception, a spokeswoman, Danielle Romero-Apsilos, said: “Citi routinely accommodates individuals who wish to leave the firm to pursue a position in government or nonprofit sector.” I pointed out that the contract terms I was asking about didn’t mention anything about a nonprofit, but she declined to elaborate on her statement.
The agreement makes no such mention of “non-profit” work. Is anyone surprised? How would Citigroup capitalize on that? No, Citigroup wants friends in high places, it wants puppets in power to give the bank further subsidies and favoritism. The Too Big To Fail bank seems to have secured itself another term of handouts with the Lew appointment, playing the old bribery game.
Citi has been an especially nice landing spot for big-shot Democrats. Former White House budget director Peter Orszag is now a Citigroup vice chairman and somehow finds time to write a column for Bloomberg News. And there was former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who was paid more than $115 million while encouraging the risk-taking that would have destroyed Citi if not for a taxpayer rescue.
Mr. Rubin was Mr. Lew’s patron at the bank. Mr. Lew’s contract suggests that Citi knew from the start that Mr. Lew was headed back to a powerful job in Washington, and that it wanted him to remember the bank fondly when he left.
Paying someone a few million dollars is a good way to ensure you are thought of fondly. And making sure if they go back into government service – as they may have hinted they will do – that they receive all the bonuses you have just conjured up is so pleasant. It’s not bribery because…
In any case Citigroup will continue its long streak of having undue influence at Treasury, Geithner has already done his part, now it’s Lew’s turn.
I wonder…
If income earners above the Social Security tax cap were denied benefits, might voters ask that the cap be raised?
So, right now, incomes above $110,000 are not taxed towards Social Security.
If anybody earning above $110,000 were left “on their own” at retirement age, perhaps the moderate wealthy would lobby to increase that cap, providing needed funds.
Banksters – William Black tells the real truth
Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer on Whistleblowers and Prosecuting Bankers for Fraud (Satire)
Consigliere Lanny Breuer, Head of the DOJ Criminal Division, Leaves Without Prosecuting One Made Man on Wall Street
By MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
1/24/13
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17768-consigliere-lanny-breuer-head-of-the-doj-criminal-division-leaves-without-prosecuting-one-made-man-on-wall-street
Excerpt:
“Lanny Breuer, Justice Department criminal division chief, is stepping down,” a Wednesday Washington Post headline announced.
We’d like to think that it was a Tuesday BuzzFlash at Truthout commentary that did the trick: “The New Untouchables Are Wall Street Executives, Despite Evidence Many Likely Criminally Violated Sarbanes-Oxley Act.” In that piece, BuzzFlash observed that Breuer is ultimately responsible for not prosecuting any key Wall Street executives, many of which – on the evidence available – oversaw a tsunami of criminal violations of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Many Americans are not aware of Sarbanes-Oxley, which has many legal requirements in it. A key regulation it places on corporations, under penalty of law, is full disclosure of financial transactions and any discovered fraudulent activity. The latter breaking of the law was key to how the subprime mortgage breakdown was the gateway to the collapse of the economy in 2008.
Yet, Breuer, who was – and likely will be again – an insider DC megabucks lawyer representing banks too big to fail and global corporations, settled on fines (or let the Securities and Exchange Commission do a slap on the wrist to corporate and financial masters of the universe). As the Washington Post confirms, “Prior to his appointment at the Justice Department, Breuer worked at the Washington office of the Covington & Burling law firm, alongside [Eric] Holder.”
In short, Breuer and Holder are responsible to the American people for prosecuting the same masters of the universe clientele who they represented for lavish salaries at Covington & Burling. We can’t read the minds of Breuer and Holder, but given DC precedent, it is quite likely that they will return to mega-bucks salary partnerships at a DC law firm again representing the kind of people who they are supposed to be prosecuting. If they criminally indict Wall Street executives, their financial value as attorneys decreases. That’s the bottom line.
Besides, these guys are of the same elite managerial class that the Wall Street “made men” are.
So Breuer did not prosecute one Wall Street executive during his term as head of the criminal division, not one. Instead the likes of the Washington Post praise him for occasionally imposing fines that were merely the cost of doing business (think of drug cartels paying off Mexican and US government officials 5 or 10% for letting shipments go through, while pocketing 90 or 95% in profits – basically analogous to a DOJ or SEC fine, even if seemingly large.) What this means is that Wall Street financial firms and corporations just factor the fines into a smaller profit, but a large profit they still make on illegal activity – and a handsome one to boot.
The New Untouchables Are Wall Street Executives, Despite Evidence Many Likely Criminally Violated Sarbanes-Oxley Act
By MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
1/22/13
http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17763-the-new-untouchables-are-wall-street-executives-despite-evidence-many-likely-criminally-violated-sarbanes-oxley-act
Excerpt:
On January 22, Frontline airs a program asking why the executives on Wall Street who oversaw the economic meltdown in 2007 have remain unprosecuted.
According to a Frontline release, “In ‘The Untouchables,’ premiering Jan. 22, 2013, at 10 P.M. on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE producer and correspondent Martin Smith investigates why the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has failed to act on credible evidence that Wall Street knowingly packaged and sold toxic mortgage loans to investors, loans that brought the U.S. and world economies to the brink of collapse.”
Frontline asks “asks Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Criminal Division, about his failure to criminally indict Wall Street executives. ‘I think there was a level of greed, a level of excessive risk taking in this situation that I find abominable and very upsetting,’ says Breuer. ‘But that is not what makes a criminal case.'”
Yet, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was designed to prosecute key elements of the kind of activity that Wall Street engaged in prior to the economic breakdown – and of which there is the possibility that they are still engaging in. All the DOJ has done is fine banks (which is merely a cost of their doing business) along with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The lamentable damage to justice is nothing new regarding Wall Street inviolability from a criminal perspective (in regards to financial accountability). In fact, “60 Minutes” aired a compelling, lengthy evidence-filled investigative story on December 4, 2011, in which reporter Steve Kroft begins the segment with this statement:
It’s been three years since the financial crisis crippled the American economy, and much to the consternation of the general publie and the demonstators on Wall Street, there has not been a single prosecution of a high ranking Wall Street executive or major financial firm, even though fraud and financial misrepresentations played a significant role in the meltdown.
After interviewing Countrywide Financial’s [which is now part of Bank of America] executive vice president, Eileen Foster, in charge of fraud investigations — and Richard Bowen holding a similar post at CitiGroup — “60 Minutes” showed how — based on their testimony and other evidence — the essence of accountability to shareholders and the government as mandated by Sarbanes-Oxley had been violated. Countrywide, in particular, was a key player in the fraudulent subprime mortgage schemes that played a pivotal role in the economic collapse that occurred at the end of the Bush administration.
“All of this raises several questions,” Kroft said in the 2011 “60 Minutes” report. “Why has the Justice Department failed to go after mortgage fraud inside Countrywide? There has not been a single prosecution. Even more puzzling is the Justice Department’s reluctance to employ one of its most powerful legal weapons against Countrywide’s top executives. It’s called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.”
Too Big to Jail: Our Banking System’s Latest Disgrace
BY NEIL BAROFSKY
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111041/too-big-jail-our-banking-systems-latest-disgrace#
You can be forgiven if you watched the Department of Justice’s announcement yesterday of a $1.92 billion settlement with HSBC with a sense of disappointment–and déjà vu. The event checked all the boxes in a theatrical routine that has become all too familiar.
Descriptions of breathtaking misconduct involving the facilitation of massive drug trafficking and transactions with rogue terror-sponsoring nations? Check.
Broad boasts about the “historic” nature of the settlement that will certainly end the type of criminal misconduct alleged? Check.
Mea culpas from the offending institution with promises that it has really learned its lesson this time and will never ever engage in dastardly conduct again? Yep, that too.
Nothing, however, was quite as it appeared. Sure, HSBC paid a record fine, but there was something vitally important missing from yesterday’s press conference: actual criminal charges for obvious criminal conduct.
Some perspective: HSBC sent more than $800 million in bulk cash from Mexico to the United States, a good chunk of which apparently represented proceeds from some of the most notorious Colombian drug cartels. As someone who tried the first narcotics money laundering case involving extradition from Colombia, let me assure you that this is a lot of money, the discovery of which usually generates vigorous prosecutions and lengthy prison sentences. And it wasn’t HSBC’s only dirty business: There were also hundreds of millions of more dollars of illegally disguised transactions with rogue nations such as Iran and Sudan.
Why no criminal charges? Why instead only some remedial measures and a “historical” fine that can be measured in weeks — not years — of earnings? It certainly wasn’t for lack of evidence. No, instead the government determined that HSBC is not only too big to fail, but also too big to jail. As the New York Times first reported, even though there were strong voices within DOJ pushing for criminal charges, the big banks’ best friends within the government (the Treasury Department, of course, and other unnamed regulators) were too fearful that an indictment could destabilize the global financial system. Yes, it’s 2008 all over again. In the name of systemic stability, a megabank again escapes accountability for its actions, rescued by compliant officials.
In some aspects, DOJ’s surrender is understandable. Notwithstanding regulatory reform efforts in the U.S. and the UK, the largest banks are in many ways even more systemically dangerous today than when we bailed them out in 2008. This indirect acknowledgment that we have failed to fix the too-big-to-fail problem has potentially dire consequences.
One of the reasons why we have a criminal justice system, of course, is to deter criminal behavior. If you know that you will be punished for putting your hand in the cash register at your local supermarket (or illegally stripping out information from a monetary transaction that identifies the source nation as Iran), you are less likely to do so. But if the government offered a blanket waiver from criminal accountability for a certain group — let’s say all left-handed people over six feet tall or a handful of banks deemed so large and so significant that their indictment could destroy the global financial system — we would expect that those exempted would no longer be deterred from committing criminal acts. And although lefty giants may otherwise lack a predisposition for boosting cash, in recent years the largest banks have demonstrated an unbridled zeal for pushing the boundaries of the law as part of their relentless pursuit of profits. DOJ’s actions with regards to HSBC are beyond unfair: They are downright terrifying for weakening the general deterrence for megabanks, both foreign and domestic, which could rationally interpret yesterday’s actions as a license to steal.
The enduring presumption of bailouts in our banking system already drives the largest banks to take on too much risk with too little disclosure and too much leverage, a toxic cocktail that will inevitably lead to another financial crisis. Yesterday’s action now spikes the punch with a new toxin, confirmation that criminal penalties are off the table, leaving a worst-case scenario of a fine totaling far less than even a single quarter’s earnings. Given the potential profits of criminal behavior and the unlikelihood of personal consequences for the executives directing it, the message is clear: Crime pays. This will inevitably lead to more reckless risk-taking that will further undermine systemic stability and lead to an even greater financial meltdown down the road.
There is, of course, a solution for our emerging two-tier system of justice. The largest banks need to be broken up, the only realistic way to truly end both too big to fail and too big to jail. But since our government has demonstrated a reluctance to do so, perhaps the next time a megabank presents HSBC’s argument that it should not be criminally charged because it would destabilize the financial system, instead of capitulating to this threat, DOJ should require at a bare minimum that in return for allowing the bank to survive, it must break itself up, ensuring that it could never hold the justice system hostage again. Otherwise, we can look forward to many more press conferences that are long on drama but short on impact.
Neil Barofsky was the Special United States Treasury Department Inspector General to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program from 2009 until his resignation in February 2011. He is currently a senior fellow at the NYU School of Law and is the author of Bailout (Free Press, 2012).
Our former Sec of Treas was a tax evader, our soon to be Sec of Treas had money in offshore bank accounts. Our Pres and At Gen seem to be not interested in prosecuting those that brought on the largest financial disaster in modern times. And yet Prez O is a “man O the people”. Amazing.
Mike,
While in agreement with most of your points, there are also thousands of “worker bee” employers in those banks that are honest, law abiding and merely trying to raise a family. If top management is removed, prosecuted and replaced by legitimate leadership then the company is allowed a long term compliance deadline the crooks get punished while minimizing job loss for the innocent employees. 60 Minutes did a similar show a while back where the bank regulators take over banks in a similar fashion, they basically come in at the end of day on a Friday afternoon and stabilize the bank before Monday morning – so as not to alarm the customers or investors. My point is most employees in these banks aren’t as culpable as the management and great care should be taken.
“While in agreement with most of your points, there are also thousands of “worker bee” employers in those banks that are honest, law abiding and merely trying to raise a family. If top management is removed, prosecuted and replaced by legitimate leadership then the company is allowed a long term compliance deadline the crooks get punished while minimizing job loss for the innocent employees.”
Ross,
I totally agree that that is a fact that these policies come from those on top of the hierarchy. I think your solution, similar to the takeover of failed banks done by the FDIC is a good one
“They won’t prosecute because it would lead to economic collapse…. or, rather, the discovery process in any prosecution would.
The apple is rotten to the core, the only thing that keeps it running is the shiny wax on the skin, makes it look OK on the shelf.”
Indigo,
This is the bottom line truth of the matter, no matter who is in charge. We have allowed these banks and their allies to take over the World’s financial system. They have made themselves “too big to fail”, while their criminal history would make even an Al Capone think himself a piker in comparison. Evil sociopaths who feel the etitlement to power.
@bron
The technology industry is not a free market. Industrial scale corporations are largely defined by their organizational prowess. They don’t compete, they buy their competitors. They succeed to the extent they are able to plan effectively.
Manufacturers need parts to arrive reliably. Farmers need to be able to purchase fertilizer when their crops need it. WalMart needs its stock to arrive on time.
A market, by contrast, is defined by unpredictability: if a competition is fair, the outcome is uncertain. Uncertainty is bad for industry, it leads to supply chain problems and price volatility where the business environment requires standardization and predictable returns on investment.
This uncertainty is the source of innovation: innovation is not possible where everything is planned. Mergers and acquisitions take the role of innovation in industry.
Industrial scale corporations don’t operate on the same principles as an entrepreneurship. The “lemonade stand” model of capitalism has about as much to say about industry as a piggy bank has to say about the fractional reserve system.
Industrial scale corporations don’t need to respond to demand, they can create demand. Take Apple’s iPod, for example. Apple is famously secretive about their product announcements, but arranged for the manufacture of millions of iPods before anybody knew anything about it. Demand follows supply.
Industrial scale corporations tend towards oligopoly. Oligopoly is the default market arrangement in industry. ADM processes 50% of US corn ethanol. Intel makes 85% of CPU’s. Microsoft makes 90% of computer operating systems. Most cities have exactly one choice of cable TV provider, and maybe two broadband providers. These aren’t cherry-picked examples.
Industry has nothing to do with free markets. The whole point of an economic competition is to put your competitor out of business, and industry operates along those lines very aggressively. Industry is successful because of planning.
Re: Post by “Tired” (Crimes Victims Rights Law).
To the best of my knowledge a citizen crime victim without an attorney (or Plaintiff Pro Se) can only file a civil case without a government prosecutor or U.S. Attorney (DOJ federal prosecutor) and they have limited resources so not all crimes are investigated. But there is one exception that I heard about: a private citizen can petition the court to “convene a Grand Jury to appoint a Special Prosecutor” – essentially independent from the Department of Justice. That would be a powerful tool for a citizen with legal standing.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/financial-crisis-bank-deregulation-myth
The financial crisis was primarily caused by government policy. We do not live in a free market. We live in a mixed economy. The technology industry is largely unregulated and as a result has performed well through various economic cycles. Financial services is the most regulated industry in the world, and since it is, it’s not surprising that the industry has been so troubled.
The real cause of the financial crisis was a combination of mistakes by the Federal Reserve, along with government housing policy, which was implemented by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Neither would have ever existed in a free market.
Do they actually process IRS whistleblower complaints?
It gets far worse! At http://www.ACLU.org on the second page (December 2012) there is an updated article titled “Spying on First Amendment Activity State by State”. We have real terrorism cases with some banks but the police, FBI, etc. are targeting African-American college students, environmentalists, animal rights activists and even peaceful protesters at the Republican National Convention! All legal and constitutional activities but real terrorism cases they have no interest in.
They won’t prosecute because it would lead to economic collapse…. or, rather, the discovery process in any prosecution would.
The apple is rotten to the core, the only thing that keeps it running is the shiny wax on the skin, makes it look OK on the shelf.
Back during Enron, when everybody was saying “a few bad apples” things looked dire. Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom…. and then the real fireworks started.
The main problem is that during the 2008 crash, the banks were insolvent. Many may still be. Drug money was the only liquid asset many banks had.
It wasn’t just HSBC, Wachovia was all over it too. It’s connected to Oliver North’s drug running network. Investigating these banks would bring it to light that the Iran-Contra investigations were a total whitewash. The CIA runs drugs and uses the mafia to launder money. There’s a clear, direct line you can trace from N897SA to Zambada Niebla, with the banks right in the middle.
If any of this were litigated, the US media would have to start talking about LIBOR. The LIBOR price fixing scheme may be a couple decades old.
Why Isn’t Wall Street In Jail? Matt Taibbi w/ Cenk on MSNBC