Viable conversation about the law and financial institutions.

[Bogtrotter07]

I would like to start a reasonable discussion of the following clips. I tried to find copies without a political advertisement at the end. I couldn't I am sorry. I am not advocating a political position on this; nor am I trying to elicit one.

Because I am most interested in hearing what those that describe themselves as fiscally conservative, or even conservative have to say on this issue.

I would also appreciate if you could restrain yourself from any criticism of Elizabeth Warren. There is no reason to bring up anything about her but the words she says here.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fKvGXF7pZAc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4Z5U8_RxG-Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Again, please just the clips.

 

[MJ12666]

It was hard to listen to the entire exchange but somehow I managed. Senator Warren's questioning reflected her ignorance as to the limited options available to the regulatory agency representatives she is questioning. These agencies are not authorized to bring any criminal actions against those companies under their regulation, they can only bring civil suits. Since it is almost always more beneficial for both parties involved in a civil suit to settle, this is the approached taken by the agencies. Her questions should have been directed at AG Holder (or his staff) as to why they have not prosecuted any "Wall Street" executives for their role in causing the "Great Recession". However, keep in mind that most Wall Street executives were Obama's largest contributors (you don't bite the hand that feeds you!).

 

[Bluto]

It was hard to listen to the entire exchange but somehow I managed. Senator Warren's questioning reflected her ignorance as to the limited options available to the regulatory agency representatives she is questioning. These agencies are not authorized to bring any criminal actions against those companies under their regulation, they can only bring civil suits. Since it is almost always more beneficial for both parties involved in a civil suit to settle, this is the approached taken by the agencies. Her questions should have been directed at AG Holder (or his staff) as to why they have not prosecuted any "Wall Street" executives for their role in causing the "Great Recession". However, keep in mind that most Wall Street executives were Obama's largest contributors (you don't bite the hand that feeds you!).

What about the issue of shutting down the institution? Who has that authority? Good post btw.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

It was hard to listen to the entire exchange but somehow I managed. Senator Warren's questioning reflected her ignorance as to the limited options available to the regulatory agency representatives she is questioning. These agencies are not authorized to bring any criminal actions against those companies under their regulation, they can only bring civil suits. Since it is almost always more beneficial for both parties involved in a civil suit to settle, this is the approached taken by the agencies. Her questions should have been directed at AG Holder (or his staff) as to why they have not prosecuted any "Wall Street" executives for their role in causing the "Great Recession". However, keep in mind that most Wall Street executives were Obama's largest contributors (you don't bite the hand that feeds you!).

Oh, I will help you out. The AG has always taken the recomendation for prosecution from these guys as an almost exclusive source of prosecutorial recomendation. About the same as a county Grand Jury, in a State of Ohio matter. I checked. I am sorry I put you through so much! I hope you are okay! LOL!

So, then would you be in favor or against legislation for penalizing banks for breaking the law? For instance, look at the number of banks that are or were found to be guilty of doing business with enemies from WWII to the war on terror, including the bank that was the forerunner to KKR, chairmaned by Prescott Bush.

 

[Bluto]

Personally I think the executive officers at HSBC should have to go tell the Sinaloa Cartel or the Zetas that they "lost" their money in a face to face conversation.

 

[MJ12666]

Actually that is not true. The subpena power of the Regulatory Agencies and the FBI for example is significantly different. It is not uncommon that the FBI and/or AG offices not being able to share information with the SEC based on legal restrictions.

Now, aside from the political campaign contribution connection, it is very difficult to get a conviction in either civil or criminal court for financial malfeasance. This is also a reason why these agencies settle rather then go to trial (which is very expensive) as there is no guarantee they will win. Senator Warren should know this.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Personally I think the executive officers at HSBC should have to go tell the Sinaloa Cartel or the Zetas that they "lost" their money in a face to face conversation.

Yeah, they may be looking for a new job, oh well, they would have no shortage of neck ties for the interview!

 

[DSully1995]

Personally I think the executive officers at HSBC should have to go tell the Sinaloa Cartel or the Zetas that they "lost" their money in a face to face conversation.

 

[MJ12666]

This is another misconception. The cartel's money is completely safe. Penalties paid by companies in these regulatory settlements ultimately only impact shareholders (mostly union pension funds and retirees) and not company officers. Given that Senator Warren is so concerned about the "little guy" I really would think that she would propose legislation to eliminate civil suits from government agencies altogether and only allow the prosecution in criminal court. I would support this legislation (not that my support would be anything) in a heart beat.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Actually that is not true. The subpena power of the Regulatory Agencies and the FBI for example is significantly different. It is not uncommon that the FBI and/or AG offices not being able to share information with the SEC based on legal restrictions.

Now, aside from the political campaign contribution connection, it is very difficult to get a conviction in either civil or criminal court for financial malfeasance. This is also a reason why these agencies settle rather then go to trial (which is very expensive) as there is no guarantee they will win. Senator Warren should know this.

Your posts are awesome! Welcome aboard. As a new user, I will give you a piece of advice, (not about content, you are the man) but if you push the quote button, then respond, it helps everybody track a specific response to a specific previous post.

Now. Here is the thing. I understand what you are saying. Who is in charge of recommending prosecution in the case of someone or some bank, or banking instance in the case that the specific action is regulated through another law, other than fraud or other regulations? For instance anti-drug money laundering and aiding the enemy statutes are on the books, (as well as a plethora of other Federal laws.) Who has the responsibility to prepare them for prosecution? The regulators who regularly inspect the banks, but who have no criminal authority, or the FBI who has no business being in the banks book, without special warrants? What about ATF?

I believe that Elizabeth Warren understands well but may be bringing up an ethical point. If we went into a bank with a gun, we would be sent away. If the banker took 100,000 times the same, (let alone from the American people), he would not be guilty of a crime? So then who is the group to ride heard on these guys?

This is another misconception. The cartel's money is completely safe. Penalties paid by companies in these regulatory settlements ultimately only impact shareholders (mostly union pension funds and retirees) and not company officers. Given that Senator Warren is so concerned about the "little guy" I really would think that she would propose legislation to eliminate civil suits from government agencies altogether and only allow the prosecution in criminal court. I would support this legislation (not that my support would be anything) in a heart beat.

Really informed point. How do you work it without making it overly complex and keep it consitutional?

 

[Bluto]

This is another misconception. The cartel's money is completely safe. Penalties paid by companies in these regulatory settlements ultimately only impact shareholders (mostly union pension funds and retirees) and not company officers. Given that Senator Warren is so concerned about the "little guy" I really would think that she would propose legislation to eliminate civil suits from government agencies altogether and only allow the prosecution in criminal court. I would support this legislation (not that my support would be anything) in a heart beat.

I understand that it's safe. That's why the cartels launder it. Maybe the executive officers should be sent to collect the money lost by the share holders from the cartels?

This kind of begs the question that if we were serious about getting rid of these cartels we would be going after large scale money laundering in a much more aggressive manner because that is basically their financial life blood.

 

[MJ12666]

Your posts are awesome! Welcome aboard. As a new user, I will give you a piece of advice, (not about content, you are the man) but if you push the quote button, then respond, it helps everybody track a specific response to a specific previous post.

Now. Here is the thing. I understand what you are saying. Who is in charge of recommending prosecution in the case of someone or some bank, or banking instance in the case that the specific action is regulated through another law, other than fraud or other regulations? For instance anti-drug money laundering and aiding the enemy statutes are on the books, (as well as a plethora of other Federal laws.) Who has the responsibility to prepare them for prosecution? The regulators who regularly inspect the banks, but who have no criminal authority, or the FBI who has no business being in the banks book, without special warrants? What about ATF?

I believe that Elizabeth Warren understands well but may be bringing up an ethical point. If we went into a bank with a gun, we would be sent away. If the banker took 100,000 times the same, (let alone from the American people), he would not be guilty of a crime? So then who is the group to ride heard on these guys?



Really informed point. How do you work it without making it overly complex and keep it consitutional?

Thank you for the advice regarding the "QUOTE" button. I was trying to figure out how to do this but was obviously unsuccessful (somewhat technically challenged).

If a regulatory agency suspects criminal activity they will advise the appropriate criminal investigative agency (example: FBI, ATF, DEA). The criminal investigative agency will then take over and the regulatory agency will be "out of the loop" at that point.

 

[Grahambo]

MJ...what did you do before you retired?