Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Expounding on To Big To Fail, SEC Policy, DOJ prosecution action

Linda posted here on To Big To Fail and made suggestions as to how to fix it. I want to just add some more background information to the discussion.
Via Bob Swern at Daily Kos who linked to a post by Pam Martens at Wall Street on Parade comes a bit of transcript from the confirmation hearing for Mary Jo White for the SEC. 
Senator Brown: When you were U.S. Attorney, my understanding is you consulted Bob Rubin and Larry Summers when considering whether to bring charges against financial firms. Is that correct?

White: I actually consulted the Deputy Attorney General who had Mr. Summers call me back. I was asking a factual question.

Senator Brown: Did they reject the argument that institutions could not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

White: I’d like to answer that yes or no but I can’t. Essentially, I was seeking information based on an argument that had been made by the lawyers for the institution that I ultimately indicted, as to whether an indictment of that institution would result in great damage to either the Japanese economy or the world economy. And the answer I got back is that I should proceed to make my own decision; which I took to mean that it would likely not have that impact.
Pam then notes:
There actually is an official policy but its finer points have certainly not been expanded upon by either Attorney General Holder or SEC nominee Mary Jo White. The policy is called Title 9, Chapter 9-28.000: Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations.* The policy thoroughly advocates the prosecution of corporations — especially when there is a serial history of fraud as in the case of Wall Street.
She quotes from the policy:
“…Virtually every conviction of a corporation, like virtually every conviction of an individual, will have an impact on innocent third parties, and the mere existence of such an effect is not sufficient to preclude prosecution of the corporation.”
Just saying.
*The link for the actual policy is in Pam’s article.

Tags: , , , , Comments (9) | |

Systematic document forgery and fabrication

Yves Smith at continues to point us in the direction of property ownership and the fallout from the widespread disregard of law in establishing title to property in her post Systematic document forgery and fabrication at Naked Capitalism:

The Department of Justice and the state of Missouri have each announced criminal plea bargains with one Lorraine Brown, former chief executive of DocX, the Lender Processing subsidiary best known for its price sheet for fabricating the mortgage documents a servicer, or frankly, anyone would need to claim they had standing to foreclose on your home. Funny how that particular DocX product was mentioned no where in the plea deals.

Brown admitted guilt to perpetrating a six-year scheme, from 2003 to 2009 to forge and falsify over a million signatures, including now-infamous practices such as “surrogate signing”, in which other employees, typically temps, would forge the signatures of robosigners. The federal penalties are up to five years in prison plus $250,000 in fines; the Missouri penalties re two to three years in prison.

Several things are striking about this deal. First is that it appears that the Missouri suit against Brown goaded the Feds to join. It’s hardly unheard of for state regulators to embarrass their Federal counterparts into action, and the DoJ probably could not afford to sit out a successful prosecution on its beat, particularly after all the noise the Obama Administration has made about its new, improved anti mortgage fraud efforts. But that makes the second item more striking: how the “statement of facts” presents Brown as deceiving Lender Processing Services about her illegal actions. Brown is thus a rogue executive whose misdeeds presumably don’t have bigger implications for LPS or the industry. It’s nauseating to see the filings take that position and contain statements like this:
When hiring DocX to sign documents, servicers typically issued special corporate resolutions delegating document execution authority to specific, authorized, and trained personnel at DocX. The DocX employees who were given express signing authority from DocX’s clients and who, as represented by Brown, were purportedly trained to ensure that the clients’ documents were properly created, signed, and notarized were called “Authorized Signers.” These documents were then generally recorded by DocX with the appropriate local property recorders’ offices throughout the country.
Read more at Naked Capitalism

Tags: , , Comments (1) | |