Goldman to 'sue for peace' in fraud case

Goldman to 'sue for peace' in fraud case

www.financialpost.com

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is to "sue for peace" in the fraud case brought by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission and offer to admit to a lesser charge of negligence if the main charges are dropped.

The U.S. investment bank has already opened an informal negotiating channel with the SEC over the charges which focus on a subprimemortgage financial vehicle called Abacus.

As part of the move on negligence, Goldman will insist there will be no admission of wrongdoing ...

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Goldman Sachs executives come under fire at hearing

More shenanigans from the folks at GS, are they basically saying that if all charges are dropped, they will pay a monetary penalty and then we can call it even?

While I am sure that GS has the resources to drag this out over a lengthy period of time, how about something called ethics and the rule of law being enforced?

If the Feds back down and accept this unacceptable offer, what kind of message is being sent?

I fully expect that what GS wants GS will get, after all, some of the people in DC are bought and paid for aren't they?

www.financialpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

hmmm, I wonder, who was it that said they'd pay a fine and admit to nothing?

anyone....anyone...beuhler...


This is expected. They've got the cash, the government will play it as a win and Goldman will avoid admission of guilt.

everyone wins.

except us.

reply to post by Crakeur


If I recall, I think I mentioned to you how "convenient" it was that they had already profited sufficiently to cover any and all legal fees and/or fines that would be incurred as a result of their (illegal) activities, in this particular case.

Kind of like a tare on a scale, they'd already covered the (weight) cost of their "packaging".

[edit on 10-5-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

Speaking of ethics

LN Mittal among top runners to chair Goldman's ethical committee

LONDON: NRI billionaire LN Mittal is among the front runners for a committee being set up to improve ethical behaviour of crisis-ridden Goldman Sachs, says a media report.

Goldman Chairman and Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein said a new business standards committee is being set up to improve ethical behaviour, according to 'The Telegraph'.

"It (committee) will be chaired by one of Goldman's non-executive directors with Lee Scott, former chairman of Wal-Mart and Lakshmi Mittal, who runs the giant ArcelorMittal steel group, among the front runners to fill the post," the report added.

I feel so much better.

Ah yes... Liberty and Justice... For all who can afford it!

So they think they can buy their way out of this? If this is agreed to, the government is inviting a revolution.

It's time the whole of America wake up and realize they they are many and Goldman Sucks are very few. Perhaps voters need to start reminding their senators & congressman of this fact. Especially after they sold you up the river with the bail-outs and back room deals that were never meant to happen.

IRM :shk:

I say one of the penalties should be fly that 28yo kid who designed the Abacus financial product over from his estate in England and let him rot in prison for a good decade or two. It would send a message to others in the industry.

Then of course dissolve the bank, liquidate their assets, and tar and feather the CEOs.

folks u have to remember
this is in a civil court
not a criminal court
nobody is going to prison
despite any outcome of this
decision. Pleading to a lessor
charge just means GS will owe
less money in fines.

And the avg American tax-payer will
not see 1 dime of that.

List of politicians that got GS money-

Well, too long to list.

Let us just say, that more than likely, every politician on Capital hill probably got money from the devil.....sorry did I say devil, I mean the devil.........there, I did it again.

Who do our "supposed" representatives, represent again?

We know who they represent. Still wondering when we are going to make that city irrelevant?

Time for the States to just eliminate the power that the DC cabal has placed over us and the rest of the world.

Sovereignty anyone? Anyone?

Secession, our last viable solution to the Fascist/Socialist State?

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
If the Feds back down and accept this unacceptable offer, what kind of message is being sent?

If we haven't already gotten the message that they've been sending for years, we're either not listening we're or deaf and blind.

Of course, I fully expect to hear an affirmation of that message.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

LN Mittal among top runners to chair Goldman's ethical committee

Meeting One: Rules of New Ethics Committee:

1. Don't get Freaking CAUGHT!

Meeting adjourned.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


So basically they are putting some foxes to guard the henhouse and keep the foxes out?

... and why doesn't the 'Pay a fine and admit to nothing' result surprise me?

These people really do live in a different world with a completely different set of rules for themselves.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Meeting One: Rules of New Ethics Committee:

1. Don't get Freaking CAUGHT!

Meeting adjourned.

Why does that not seem too far from the truth..?

Civil litigation depends on more than facts.

This needed to be, and MUST be brought to CRIMINAL COURT!

Civil implies that it wasn't a "big deal" to begin with.

The defendants should include the Fed.... and someone MUST be found GUILTY of what happened or NOTHING is accomplished by this litigation.

How much make-believe currency gets lobbed about is not a measure of JUSTICE.

Let's see... bankers of distinction endanger the entire planet's economic stability for profit.... I can't presume to speak for others, but it sounds like a crime to me, not some civil dispute about regulations.

reply to post by Maxmars


Sounds like your rally cry falls on deaf ears again?

Goldman Sachs faces $1bn fine to draw line under fraud trial

...The SEC is said to be veering towards moving to an out-of-court settlement but is determined not to "let Goldman off lightly" because it would send the wrong signals to markets, investors and politicians. Senior figures in the Obama administration are also said to be ready to see an accommodation. Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, and the Federal Reserve are reported to be in favour of a settlement to allow the executive to focus on completing banking reforms...

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Unlikely as it may seem, I would pray that GS' clients would vote with their feet. But then, if people knew that someone could steal for their benefit, how likely would it be that they would quit the relationship?

The market corrects itself? Why yes, assuming that there are consequences.... which evidently there are not... at least not of significance to their profit margin.

It stands to reason that the regulators and governmental officials would be "OK" with this course of action since their future careers and political support (or those of their children) are served by loyalty to the banks.

I am not sure if this is tied to this particular case, (so many different things going on at the moment)..

SEC deputy director to participate in Goldman Sachs case

Lorin Reisner, deputy director of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), will be taking part in the legal case against Goldman Sachs.

The regulator filed a notice of appearance for the proceedings indicating he will be a member of the SEC team attending the case.

Goldman Sachs and vice-president Fabrice Tourre were accused of misleading investors by the SEC by not providing full details on an investment product tied to subprime mortgages.

According to the filing, the financial institution failed to divulge that hedge fund Paulson & Co had played a part in selecting the instrument, then bet against its performance.

A good sign or just more window dressing to fool the public?

The Death Penalty For the Corporation Comes of Age

Goldman Sachs is presumably incorporated in the State of New York where it was founded. The charter of incorporation necessary for existence can and must be revoked. Consider this paragraph from the article linked above:

Throughout the nation's history, the states have had -- and still have -- the authority to give birth to a corporation, by granting a corporate charter, and to impose the death penalty on a corporate wrongdoer by revoking its charter. Activist-author Richard Grossman points out that in 1890, for example, New York's highest court revoked the charter of the North River Sugar Refining Corporation -- referring to the judgment explicitly as one of ''corporate death.'' It was once widely understood that the states had this power. ''New York, Ohio, Michigan and Nebraska revoked the charters of oil, match, sugar and whiskey trusts'' in the 1800s, Grossman wrote in the pamphlet, ''Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation,'' co-authored with Frank Adams

There is no need to wait around for a recalcitrant federal government to do a job most people assume will not get done, as a matter of course. Pressure should be put on the Attorney General for the State of New York, who is Andrew M. Cuomo, to revoke Goldman Sachs charter, and in effect, execute this criminal corporation. Criminal charges need not be brought against this corporation, although, if their corporate charter is revoked, this could very likely leave those decision makers of that corporation liable to criminal laws as well.

Revocation of corporate charter is a fundamental right of the people who reside in the State of which the charter was granted, but one need not reside in the State of New York in order to put vocal and written pressure upon New York's Attorney General to do what is necessary to put justice in regarding this criminal corporation known as Goldman Sachs