reply to post by Xcathdra
Conspiracy to commit fraud
theft by deceit
witness tampering if any threats were used to get people to back down
What -laws- did they break?
Many of the Wall Street share traders, that is (not sure what a "wall street executive" is - it sounds like a straw man, to me).
Legally, I can sell you a device that doesn't work. Look at all those magnetic bracelets or those goofy necklaces the Cardinals wear as part of a
sponsorship (that also don't work).
You can't bring someone up on tampering with evidence if there's no crime being investigated, either.
What you're boiling down to is: "I'm angry and think these people should be in jail because they were supposed to be in control of all of
Even though they weren't. Poor design of business models is not illegal. Failure to see the storm on the horizon and act on it is also not
necessarily illegal. You have to be able to demonstrate some kind of individually attributable fault to individuals in order to place them under
criminal charges - or even civil suit.
If we want to look at FEderal, depending on the info that comes out, potential violation of RICO statutes.
Yeah, if you go on a multi-million dollar witch-hunt, you can probably catch a couple dozen share traders up in a couple hundred thousand dollars of
embezzlement schemes or some other nonsense that would normally be brought to prosecutors by internal auditors for those companies.
I'm just not seeing where the laws make what has been going on illegal. Granted - it should have never been going on, I agree. Not only is it
underhanded, but it's also a very, very bad way of conducting business that is inherently unstable.
reply to post by proximo
Ok here is a few. First you have the mortgage companies such as Countrywide creating false documentation by the 1000's to get people approved
for loans that had no business getting. They created false income - false assets anything needed to get someone approved. They then sold these loans -
as high quality to be packaged in Mortgage backed securities. This is fraud, but nobody has been prosecuted.
Here's where you need to have some proof, though I thank you for naming something specific that can be proven.
This can also be somewhat murky - What are the laws on what can/can't be claimed as an asset? You would, normally, not claim a computer as an asset
- but conceivably could from a legal standpoint (it is something you own and can exchange for money).
Again - "Getting creative" is not illegal. It may, certainly, be wrong and very underhanded given the circumstances; but it is not necessarily
Here is the other problem - you have to prove that "executives" ordered and/or knew of the behavior. For example - telling brokers to "be
creative" isn't necessarily ordering them to commit fraud.
Second the the financials that bought these loans figured out they were garbage and still sold them as AAA.
Is that labeling one that comes with legal liability? This is one that can be pretty gray. Companies can make up their own labels that mimic or
mirror the labels used by other industries or standards unless those are copyrighted/trademarked and/or a legally enforced standard. It doesn't stop
companies from getting as close as they can without teams of ninja-lawyers showing up.
Third Goldman Sachs was selling MBS and then buying derivatives betting against the MBS. This is fraud and insider trading.
I'm not seeing that as falling under fraud or insider trading, legally. Is there a historic case that you can use to establish precedent or a
specific mentioning in the laws that places this kind of behavior within the realms of illegality?
This one is certainly more plausible. However - you're looking at years of investigation and trying to figure out who knew what, when, and prove
illegal activity. More than likely, there will simply be class-action retribution for this with a rather minimal witch-hunt (that would accomplish
very little). Title Insurance companies, though, will likely fry over this - as they should be paying close attention to the titles and groups they
You do realize that Fannie and Freddie were victims of the fraud as well do you not.
Not really. They buy the MBSs from smaller banks and re-sell them as larger chunks of stock. Had they not been around, the trend would have never
been so broad. The market for MBSs would not have been nearly as lucrative and enticing for fraud without the negligence of FM&FM (hmm...).