A statement sent my way from Phil Angelides, the chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, plays into this debate over the RMBS working group in some interesting ways.
The crux of the matter is that Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican commissioner on the FCIC who did not sign onto the final report, made some statement to the media about how the FCIC already investigated the areas of inquiry concerning the crash of the housing bubble and found no criminal wrongdoing. The article appeared in McClatchy:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission already looked at much of this, insisted Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a Republican appointee to the commission.
“We had access to everything that such task force (unit) would look for and we couldn’t find enough evidence … for criminal referrals,” said Holtz-Eakin. “I think what we found out is that stupidity is not illegal. A lot of this was bad business decisions, unwise, but it wasn’t illegal.”
Needless to say, Angelides took issue with this, not least because Holtz-Eakin didn’t even sign onto the final report. But in rebutting the claim, Angelides calls back something that was known when they released the report. On page xi, in the introduction, right up front, it says this:
In addition, the Commission was instructed to refer to the attorney general of the United States and any appropriate state attorney general any person the Commission found may have violated the laws of the United States in relation to the crisis. Where the Commission found such potential violations, it referred those matters to the appropriate authorities.
I remember confirming with the Justice Department that they received those referrals of potential violations of law from the FCIC. As it turns out, that happened a year ago Saturday. And we’ve heard nothing arising out of those criminal referrals from the existing Financial Fraud Task Force.
In addition, we knew at the time that those criminal referrals related to violations of secruties law, in other words precisely what the new RMBS working group would want to investigate. Angelides as much as confirms this today in his statement:
In addition, the report itself raises direct concerns regarding the legality of the mortgage securities activities that will be the focus of the new unit, in addition to containing significant facts on such activities. As just one example, in the section of the report (commencing on page 166) that contains evidence from Clayton Holdings regarding the mortgage securitization actions of a number of major financial firms, the report states (commencing on page 169): “Only a small portion – as little as 2% to 3% – of the loans in any deal were sampled, and evidence from Clayton shows that a significant number did not meet stated guidelines or have compensating factors. On the loans in the remainder of the mortgage pool that were not sampled (as much as 97%), Clayton and the securitizers had no information, but one could reasonably expect them to have many of the same deficiencies, and at the same rate, as the sampled loans. Prospectuses for the ultimate investors in the mortgage-backed securities did not contain this information, or information on how few loans were reviewed, raising the question of whether the disclosures were materially misleading, in violation of the securities laws.” As another example, on page 187, the Commission concluded, “Potential investors were not fully informed or were misled about the poor quality of the mortgages contained in some mortgage-backed securities.”
The Justice Department has had this information, contained in depositions and official testimony, for a little over a year. They’ve done nothing. The Securities and Commodities Fraud working group would have been the natural arm of the Financial Fraud Task Force to which to refer those FCIC findings. The co-chairs of that group included Lanny Breuer and Robert Khuzami, who are also co-chairs of the RMBS working group that Schneiderman co-chairs.
Even those excited about this working group would have to admit that the same people at the federal level had the same access to the same violations of law and sat on their hands for the entire tenure of the Obama Administration. That’s why some people are skeptical that this new working group will lead to anything real. I recognize the claims that the dynamic around financial fraud and making Wall Street pay has changed generally, and that the Administration’s political people know they have a problem with coziness toward Wall Street, and so they may let the rope out a little bit. Plus there are prosecutors in DoJ at a lower level who may be dying to get their hands on some of this material and work with the new mandate to make some real noise. I understand that perspective. Time will tell if that will resolve in any different manner than the FCIC criminal referrals did.
Angelides closes by saying that “I look forward to President Obama’s newly appointed task force righting the financial wrongs that were committed, including the matters identified by the FCIC and referred to the Department of Justice.” So do I.




48 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Do I detect increasing skepticism on your part, David?
Looks like we ALL shall have to adopt Obama’s quasi-official “motto” of “looking forward.”
However, “righting the financial wrongs that were comitted” does NOT sound like, Obama’s claim that ” … they did nothing illegal” …
Yes?
No?
Probably just a “misunderstanding”.
In “six to eight months” things will be clear, very clear, regardless of the “official position”.
Thank you, DDay, for staying focused upon this.
If I might quote Southern Dragon? … please, “Never give up!”
DW
Only two Friedman Units. Sanctimonious purists are so impatient.
I read this book when it came out. There is no doubt whatsoever that everyone knew, no one did anything and it was assumed that the whole thing would go away. I’m sure the fact that things are the same or worse with the economy, depending on your criteria, has made this inquiry impossible to ignore. The book names names, gives dates, gives details. It remains a scorcher.
DDay, I hope you’ve forwarded a copy of this column to Matt Taibbi. He appears to have entirely too much faith in Schneiderman and his new “commission.”
And how do we get those non-paying leeches over @ Huff Post to pick this up? At least for the dissemination value.
David
This is confusing because a co-chair would indicate one of two chairs when the reality seems to be Schneiderman is actually a 1/5 chair of the five member committee which waters him down to insignificance. Seems like a play on words.
I would say it’s likely that at this very moment a lottery is being held to decide which one or two persons will be drafted to be the scapegoats for the entire industry. Holder and Breuer are already criminal accomplices as far as I’m concerned. Anything that happens now will be purely a bow to political electoral expediency, and nothing more.
this will be slow walked until the statute of limitations takes effect
And there you have it. If Justice is going to refuse to move on anything the committee comes up with, what’s the point?
What book is that? I don’t see author or title.
If starting an unnecessary war with false evidence, torturing, and stealing a Presidential election are not worth investigating and prosecuting what is stealing a few trillion dollars from “entitled” Americans.
IIRC, FDL had one of the commishes come & do a book salon. I asked the jerk what they planned to do with the results and he replied that he hoped it would be read and its conclusions be considered. It was clear that even the signers didn’t want it to get publicity.
As a result of his response, I didn’t bother reading it, since it seemed it would never have any influence. But if, as you say, it’s a scorcher, I might have to change my mind.
Here. (pdf)
Well, I could call them fifth-chairs, but that doesn’t really sound right. They’re co-chairs of a panel of five.
Any impending action may be why daley went down the road. I’m guessing there may be a perp walk before the election and daley wanted a lot of distance.
Of course I was convinced there was going to be a perp walk before the last election, so my hope is rather dim.
I think Schneiderman chumped out by joining the DOJ Firewall of Justice.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, “The final report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States.”
In the meantime, wouldn’t there be that whole “tick-tick-ticking” of the statute clock? Sounds a bit by design to me. Then again, I’m a cynic in these matters…
Again, definition of a commission; a group of people who singly can do nothing but together can decide nothing can be done.
I’m going to be uncharacteristically generous to the Obama administration and assume that this was the case–i.e., they actually believed that the half-hearted stimulus in 2009 plus the bank bail-out would get the economy moving again, bring underwater homes above water, and that in the ensuing prosperity people would overlook the crimes. But the prosperity didn’t come, and people are getting angry, and there are real culprits out there, not just fall guys. Obama may be forced politically to, you know, actually do something (for a change).
Exactly. That’s the entire purpose of the working group: to kick the can down the road until it’s too late to do anything about it.
Either Schneiderman knows this, in which case he’s complicit (for whatever reason), or he doesn’t know this, in which case he’s stupid.
I hope I’m wrong about him, but unless he’s got some plan to play eleventy-dimensional chess against all of DC, I don’t see it.
the only thing you can take to the bank with oblabla is his top motivation to win a second term so he can self describe himself as successful. remember what clinton did in his second term when he was beyond being pressured? yea, thats right he deregulated everything in sight to the point the heritage foundation lauded bill for being the best de-regulator EVER….how much of the financial crisis could not have taken place without this de-regulation???
The perps are walkin’, all right. :-(
Rightfully so, amigo.
Predictably, eCAHN, the report finds that ” … as a Nation, we must accept responsibility” … for “…to pin this crisis on mortal flaws like greed and hubris would be too simplistic. It was the failure to account for human weakness that is relevant to this crisis.”
The report DOES name names, and everyone should read it … as well, everyone should weep, because NOTHING will be done, one need only read the names of the players and look at what has happened thus far, to understand that there will be NO meaningful accountability.
DW
The report goes on to say, “…we deeply respect and appreciate the efforts made by Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, formerly head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now treasury secretary …”
And that, ladies and germs, shows just such “accountability” as we may expect.
DW
‘Society may subsist without beneficence, but the prevalence of injustice must utterly destroy it.’
Adam Smith
the whole passage is good, but I can’t type it all here
DW, you talkin’ to yaself agin? (Who could blame ya?)
Crockupational hazard, rc … and I type too damn slowly …
;~DW
Actually I think the commission on its own couldn’t do anything and it ended up in a complete split: the Democrats on the commission agreed with the majority findings with no Republicans, and visa versa. I think they had very definite recommendations for what could be done and did, as DD quoted, refer this to the DOJ for criminal prosecutions and other enforcement activities. What bothered me then as well as now is how this commission was never thereafter mentioned by Obama or anyone else. It was not like some blog or some article written by someone albeit knowledgable. It was folks with subpoena power, testimony, records, etc… in other words, access to real data and there was plenty of blame to go around for all. It was not hard or difficult reading. It was explicit. But then as DD stated and I agree: nothing happened. Here we are a year later and everyone is acting like they are just now waking like Sleeping Beauty! It was all there a year ago and I am agreeing with DD that there is reason to be suspicious of this new found fervor.
Righto, theresa, and the statutes of limitation start expiring late this year or early next year on many of the earliest “acts”.
It’s a slow, foot-dragging “race” (can’t ya see me sweatin’?) to the … shucks, goshgolly, goshdern … just a little too late, to the … it’s all finished … line …
DW
Actually several Republicans on the Commission agreed and voted on many conclusions. Wall Street and their allies lost $11 trillion of Americans assets. Some Republicans believe just give them a spanking for gambling our money away. Most Americans want to see them prosecuted and put in a cell for years with some convicted Three Strikers. Bob Mulholland
I agree with your cynicism. :)
I think I owe ya a beverage. :)
Downstairs, DDay quotes Schneiderman: “… tax fraud is a possibility”. Interesting locution, as tax fraud allows the IRS to go back forever. Sounds like Schneiderman is baiting the hook, fishing for whistleblowers. A thorough investigation would take forever, he needs someone to fess up. I think the language suggests a plea bargain: You talk, you can walk.
Gonna take more than “bait”, AitchD, there needs to be a wee bit of trepidation, that tiny knawing sense of FEAR … which, heretofore, has been totally and completely absent.
Bear in mind as well that the IRS is woefully, and quite intentionally understaffed … as many of its “top” administrators have been working for the banks … you know ye olde revolving door?
As it happens spocko has a most interesting diary, today. Well worth a chuckle.
http://my.firedoglake.com/spocko/2012/01/29/mitt-paid-13-9-in-taxes-sucker-ge-tax-guys-taunt-romneys-tax-guys/.
DW
Ah … the old Friedman Unit. Good times! Thanks for that blast from the past.
You know it’s gotta be a cup of Blue Dragon. See ya in the Diner to collect lol.
The statute of limitations depend on the theory and I don’t know what they all are. All that has to be done is a complaint filed on or before that date. I certainly have filed law suits very shortly before. So I am not worried about that. Now that it’s in everyone’s mind, it’s not going to be inadvertently missed. I think we all agree that the plan was to do nothing at all, hope for better times and then it would all go away. But, the economy remains rough, people remain down with fewer resources, and it’s not going away. This is the year of wrath, oh, dreadful year as the funeral hymn loosely went.
How much looking forward does O do when it comes to medical mariquana purveyers, alleged illegal aliens and whistle blowers? Seems to me he looks wherever he feels like looking as long as it furthers his cynical purposes.
I am not concerned about stautes of limitation being inadvertantly missed, rather, it will be deliberate. As it happens, I was referring to federal statutes, theresa, which are six years, generally, regarding financial fraud … state statutes are shorter and specifically in New York and Delaware, where many of the “transactions” originated, generally, I am told, run to about four years. IF, and it is a substantially big “if”, IRS regulations may be brought to bear, then the “window” will be much larger and the time-frame far more open-ended.
The crux, as I suspect that you, as an attorney (which I am not) already know, will be proving “intent”.
The “result” is of no legal consequence unless it can be proven that the “result” is what the actors “intended” … this “region” is where I suspect the final unravelling shall occur.
A “year of wrath” is long overdue, but sadly, considering the current state of the Rule of Law, reality suggests that it will be a toothless wrath, more given to sound and fury resulting in a significant “nothing” …
I sincerely hope that I am wrong and would much appreciate any reasoning or thoughts which you might share to dispell these gloomy forecasts, theresa.
DW
“Looking forward” with blinders on, arcadesport … is the Obama way, especially as regards the Rule of Law, which encompasses all that you mention.
DW
I will take care of it. *g*
No, I was tracking with you. You have to prove intent for civil fraud but it can be inferred. You also need to prove it for criminal actions but again, it can be inferred. Otherwise it is not a big part of civil actions.
I am not too worried about a prosecutor or a plaintiff’s attorney proving these elements. For example, let’s say I am driving down the road. I see you crossing the road. It’s the cross walk. You have every right to be in the cross walk. Somehow, someway, I just can’t wrap my brain around you being in the cross walk or stopping, or slowing or anything else until it is too late, I do not stop and you are hit and injured. I could be very sincere that I did not intend to hit you. I just never stopped. But since the only thing on earth to change the trajectory of what logically happened here was for you suddenly to be teletransported somewhere else!!!! When I didn’t stop, I legally “intended” to hit you. Period. When there was no other result possible from a person’s actions than to cause the injury that occurred, the person “intended” that result. (The law is “a ass” but not a total “fat ass.”) :)
We both share the concern for the WILL to fight back though, and that’s a different story. The financial industry group is a tough talkin’ manure kickin’ group. So anyone taking them on will get his or her pretty little face messed up, at least a bit. Career lawyers love this kind of fight, not politician type lawyers or those working under their thumbs, but real lawyers. So the comment was made of letting the underling DOJ off their leashes and we will have law suits. Don’t forget the investor generated lawsuits as well.
So let’s enjoy life. There are lots of good guys out there. Let’s watch what happens.
The statute of limitations has been taking effect with every breath you take. Usually, the federal statute of limitations is 5 years from the date of the offense. For securities fraud in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1348, we’re probably losing cases daily.
Re conspiracy, the offense is deemed to continue until the conspirators pull out of it. So conspiracy remains a possibility even if the statute has run on the underlying securities fraud. It seems clear that the conduct resulting in the mortgage meltdown required networks of conspirators.
Another possibility is bank (financial institution) fraud in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1344. This includes getting a mortgage by false pretenses, e.g., overstating income or understating liabilities. It covers a lender that falsifies applicants’ income or liabilities in order to get them the mortgage. The statute of limitations on bank fraud is 10 years. Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3293.
This is more of a retail approach to law enforcement than is securities fraud for, e.g., lying about what’s in a mortgage-backed security containing a gazillion crummy mortgages or pieces of mortgages. But these cases should be pretty straightforward and hey, you can serve only so many years in prison. If the purposes of criminal prosecution are punishment and deterrence, I’ll take it.
What you have to watch with bank fraud is the Treasury regs that require banks to keep records for only seven years, three fewer years than the statute of limitations on bank fraud. But, with mortgages, presumably the records should be kept for the life of the mortgage. This will almost always be longer than seven years.
If the feds and Schneiderman are serious, in other words, they have tools.
Sorry about that illegible clump of text above. I had to go back and edit. Et voila.
Thank you for responding, theresa.
Your example is precisely what I should hope might be “understood” …
I look forward to further, very enjoyable, conversation with you, as your perspective and understanding is much appreciated.
DW
Prove it!
If you were referred to a prosecutor for criminal investigation, would you want all the details of the investigation released to the press at all stages, starting with the allegations, the research done, persons questioned, your bank records examined, and so on? The FBI investigated many people under Hoover as part of witch hunts, but seldom did those investigations surface so many controversial figures were not subject to the attacks on their reputations that followed Congressional witch hunts.
Of course, one man’s witch hunt is another man’s rooting out commies, radicals, terrorists, or banksters.
The easy cases in the recent bank crisis run up are not going to affect anyone who made a lot of money – what is the point of prosecuting even 500 low level managers of now defunct mortgage origination units for systematic false statements of assets and assessments? Proving the buyers of the mortgages created by those low level managers isn’t going to be simply “they should have known”. Maybe the low level managers will testify against their managers, but will they be able to testify convincingly against the banks buying the securities?
As we watch the Republicans make the first big use of superpacs, we can see how coordination takes place without any direct communication. The common goals of the Romney campaign are also the goals of the Romney supporting superpacs, so the common goals drives both to work together but independently.
And so it was with mortgages – the mortgages that sold quickly sent a clear message to originators on what to do to create mortgages that sold quickly, and none of the quick selling mortgages were audited. The clear message was anything goes whether legal or ethical or not. Proving the bankers conspired to act illegally is very different than arguing “they should have known.”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin is always arguing that regulations never work because people are inherently corrupt and will find any loophole to render the regulation ineffective. After all, the argument of conservative economists is capitalist have nor moral or ethical responsibility other than maximizing profit. This amoral view has been incorporated in financial law, so moral outrage does not win convictions like it too often does in drug and violent and children related cases.
Sorry, but no dice. Intent requires a willful act. Maybe not stopping was due to failing to pay attention, which would be unintentional manslaughter. Maybe you were driving too fast for the conditions (darkness, sun in your eyes) so it is reckless endangerment, but not intentional. Intentional would be road rage at pedestrians, or recognizing a jilting lover and speeding up or swerving to hit.