Could we convict major bank and Wall Street figures?

[Leaper]

Well, there are posts like 172 that assert that such evidence exists, and is being sat on because of political and financial interests. That’s certainly GD material, IMO.

[Evil_Captor]

HSBC ADMITTED to their money laundering as part of the agreement that let them get off with a fine. Why Holder let it go at that I can’t say, but I think it’s no coincidence that his boss’s biggest campaign contributor came from Wall Street.

[Leaper]

Uh, unless I’m missing something, an admission that comes as part of what’s basically a plea deal doesn’t necessarily mean that there was sufficient supporting prosecutable evidence beforehand.

Now, you can certainly argue that the making of the plea deal could indicate that, but I don’t see how the admission itself does.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Leaper

Well, there are posts like 172 that assert that such evidence exists, and is being sat on because of political and financial interests. That’s certainly GD material, IMO.

But that’s just opinion based without us actually seeing the evidence. Okay, so maybe there is evidence the public doesn’t have full access to that demonstrates certain specific people committed crimes, and for some reason the government is sitting on it.

That’s terrible if true, but highly difficult to prove in order to answer the OP’s question.

I think we all agree that if that evidence exists it should be made public or some justification given to the public as to why it is being kept secret. If it really does exist, and the government isn’t prosecuting it I’d wager it is because of administratively encouraged “prosecutorial discretion.” Namely, in the middle of a financial crisis it was probably recognized criminal prosecutions of CEOs would open up a potential floodgate of criminal prosecutions of large corporations. As was seen when Arthur Andersen basically got the corporate death penalty, thousands of people lost their jobs. The big banks employ something like 800,000 people, some 60-70% of whom are lower to middle income retail branch employees who make change for you at the bank drive thru or help you set up a checking account. It’s questionable how much political will there would be to possibly destroy those “non-evil” jobs.

There are generally understandable non-conspiratorial reasons to not prosecute certain crimes, for example if it is deemed to not be in the public interest. But it’s impossible to know if that’s actually going on based on the information we have. It’s certainly possible to speculate on it though, as many of you are doing here.

But the problem is when we transcend that sort of speculation and assert individuals should be in prison. If you think an individual should be in prison you need to back that up with specific evidence.

[deltasigma]

@Martin_Hyde

But the problem is when we transcend that sort of speculation and assert individuals should be in prison. If you think an individual should be in prison you need to back that up with specific evidence.

I really don’t want to be difficult or argue, but you lost me there. It’s just an opinion and not and absurd one like being a birther or truther or some shit like that either. It’s one that is respectable enough to have been the basis of things like Congressional hearings. So from whence does this obligation for SPECIFIC evidence come?

I see how it relates to the OP, but that’s not the substance of the comment I’m taking issue with here.

[newcomer]

How do you spell corruption?

Most scandals involving the cozy relationship between Wall Street and its regulators play out behind closed doors. Others happen in plain view, and this is one of the latter. In a Manhattan courtroom Thursday, a federal judge held a hearing on whether to approve a legal settlement in which** Steven A. Cohen,** one of the richest and most publicity-shy men in the country, appears to be buying off the U.S. government, which for years has been investigating wrongdoing in and around his hedge fund, SAC Capital Advisers.

Is Steven A. Cohen Buying Off the U.S. Government?

But, yeah, let’s debate what exactly is his crime or ask for proof.

Anyway, there’s nothing great about debate like this. Debating with some here is like leaning over a body, increasing charge over and over and screaming “Clear”. However, it’s becoming clear (pun intended) that no amount of charge can jolt some of the duds around here.

[Human_Action]

@newcomer

How do you spell corruption?

Is Steven A. Cohen Buying Off the U.S. Government? | The New Yorker

But, yeah, let’s debate what exactly is his crime or ask for proof.

This article isn’t nearly as damning as you make it out to be.

1. This is a settlement of a civil suit against the hedge fund itself.

In what officials are calling the largest-ever settlement of an insider trading action, SAC agreed to pay securities regulators about $602 million to resolve a civil lawsuit related to improper trading at the fund.

2. Employees of SAC have been criminally prosecuted:

As a result of this probe, no fewer than nine current or former employees of SAC have been tied to insider dealing while working at the firm, and four of them have pleaded guilty.

3. One of SAC’s senior officers, Michael Steinberg, has been indicted and arrested on criminal charges.

4. The civil settlement in no way precludes Mr. Cohen from being charged with crimes.

5. There is nothing unusual about targeting lower-level operatives in a criminal enterprise to build a case against the high-level operatives, and that appears to be what’s happening in this case:

Including Mr. Steinberg, nine current or former SAC employees have been linked to insider trading while at the company; four have pleaded guilty. Some of the former employees who have been implicated hardly knew Mr. Cohen, who operates a sprawling $15 billion fund with more than 1,000 employees across the globe.

But Mr. Cohen and Mr. Steinberg were close. Mr. Steinberg is one of SAC’s most veteran employees, though he was recently placed on leave soon after being tied to an earlier case.

Federal investigators have tried to press lower-level SAC employees for information in helping them build a case against Mr. Cohen. In one instance, F.B.I. agents showed a former trader a sheet of paper with headshots of his former colleagues, with Mr. Cohen at the center. The agents compared the SAC founder to an organized-crime boss who sat atop a corrupt organization.

6. So, why hasn’t Mr. Cohen been charged as yet? Your article discusses this:

Perhaps Cohen didn’t do anything wrong. Back in November, after Martoma was charged, Jonathan Gasthalter, a spokesman for SAC at the P.R. firm Sard Verbinnen, said, “Mr. Cohen and SAC are confident that they have acted appropriately and will continue to coöperate with the government’s inquiry.”

…

A second possibility is that, despite the Martoma complaint, there simply isn’t sufficient evidence to convict Cohen, and the prosecutors have reluctantly accepted this fact. Insider-trading cases are tricky. We don’t know what Cohen said to Martoma during their conversation, or whether Martoma would be willing to testify against him.

…

A third possibility is that this is another instance in which the Justice Department doesn’t have the gumption to indict a senior Wall Street figure backed by a battalion of high-priced lawyers. To borrow Joe Nocera’s phrase, this may be just one more case of “too big to jail.” Mitigating against this explanation is the fact that Bharara has already demonstrated a willingness to put senior figures in the dock. Rajaratnam, who is serving eleven years in jail, and Gupta, who is serving two years, can both testify to that.

There’s a fourth possibility that went unmentioned, which is that the DoJ is still building its case, and hopes to use plea bargains with men like Steinberg to strengthen that case.

@newcomer

Anyway, there’s nothing great about debate like this. Debating with some here is like leaning over a body, increasing charge over and over and screaming “Clear”. However, it’s becoming clear (pun intended) that no amount of charge can jolt some of the duds around here.

I hope my debate efforts meet your standards.

[Marley23]

@newcomer

Anyway, there’s nothing great about debate like this. Debating with some here is like leaning over a body, increasing charge over and over and screaming “Clear”. However, it’s becoming clear (pun intended) that no amount of charge can jolt some of the duds around here.

This is insulting and it’s kind of a threadshit. Knock it off.