We learned today that one prominent voice would not serve as staff director of the RMBS working group, the investigatory panel looking into securities fraud by the big banks. We don’t know who the working group will ultimately select. But Chris Whalen does give a theory as to how the working group, if Eric Schneiderman gets his way, could proceed. Basically, he thinks Schniederman could get the banks on tax fraud, which is something he’s been hinting at in recent public appearances. Interestingly, Whalen postulates that most of this will come out of the New York AG’s office rather than the working group.
The NY AG inquiry, on the other hand, reportedly focuses on areas such as loan origination and sales, the creation of residential mortgage-backed securities, the change in and perfection of title with respect to mortgages, and the role of the trustees and servicers. Each of these areas of inquiry is separate and apart from the issue of foreclosure abuse. And each carries with it legal and tax consequences that are significantly larger than the $25 billion involved in the foreclosure settlement announced recently [...]
But perhaps the biggest surprise coming from the New York AG is going to be his focus on the issues of taxes, something Schneiderman talks about in media interviews but which the financial press largely ignores. The allegations of wrongdoing against Bank of America and Bank of New York with respect to RMBS raise troubling issues for investors, not the least of which is the tax status of what are arguably busted RMBS REMIC trusts.
There is also the issue of the largest banks counting losses from RMBS trusts as expenses, a maneuver admitted already by Countrywide in court proceedings. This admission not only eviscerates any claim of separateness between the sponsor and the RMBS trust, but may also result in huge future tax liabilities for the banks. By pretending that losses to the RMBS trusts were losses of the bank, Countrywide underpaid state and federal taxes for years and arguably committed tax fraud on a systemic basis.
Whalen positions this as similar to how federal prosecutors brought down Al Capone and other mob figures, through violations of the tax code. I’ve described what Schneiderman may be thinking about REMICs here and here. A taste:
REMICs are an acronym for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits. When you’re talking about mortgage pools used in securitization, you’re talking about REMICs. And REMICs have special tax treatment; they are exempt from federal taxes provided they only invest in “qualified mortgages” and other permitted investments. Here’s the important part: under the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the REMIC must receive all of its assets in the trust within 90 days and the assets have to be performing (not in default). Any REMIC violations make the vehicle subject to a penalty tax of 100%, with additional penalties as they apply.
Well, the strong suspicion is that, during the bubble years, the trustees did not properly convey the mortgages to the REMICs. Which makes the whole investment vehicle a massive tax fraud.
As for counting RMBS losses as expenses, that’s a new one on me. But both of them point to liability on tax issues. This would require at least some buy-in from the IRS, however, and according to Yves Smith, they’re just not that interested.
I’ll certainly believe this when I see it. The banks have very good lawyers who know how to wriggle off the hook (check out the possible loophole that could get them out of the FHFA lawsuits). The opposing forces must be as nimble and creative. We’re still waiting to see how that will proceed.




17 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Don’t be surprised if Obama/Holder not only press to hold harmless, but too indemnify. Have to fund one’s retirement somehow and Bankster/Wall St. beat the hell out of IRA’s. It’s not that I don’t trust the bastards—well I guess I don’t.
Arbusto, you would be correct.
100% correct.
The deal is done, let the screwing begin.
I’m reminded of the game of Cootie that we kids used to like to play. Annoying types would take advantage of some play in the rules to attach any old part anywhere on the bug’s head and body and try to tell littler kids that such monsters were the winners.
And monkeys COULD fly out of my butt. However, I would not advise anyone to waste their time and energy standing behind me with a net. (The smart money would stand behind Obama with a net, in hopes of catching a few shreds of the Rule of Law.)
I’ve been reading that the RMBS that were supposed to be assigned to the REMICS were often not only not assigned as required, but were actually used as collateral on the repo market which amounts to selling people something that you don’t actually own.
If this is true, it would seem that the banks might be liable for taxes on multiple fraudulant transactions?
Our government has a very large pile of sh*t to sweep under the rug.
I can’t imagine they are up to the job.
I would be greatly surprised if the banks are ever held accountable for their crimes. They own our political system. Our “Justice” department is here to keep us in our place not to disrupt corporate plundering.
In all the Pooling and Servicing Agreements I have read so far, to create a perfected REMIC, the agreements are worded in such a way, that the Trustee is legally incapable of accepting a non conforming mortgage or of accepting a late mortgage (except in highly specific circumstances where they are swapping out a non conforming mortgage that slipped in by mistake)
This is why the forged robo signed docs are the crux. Documnet mills are creating back dated docs to try to make it look like the mortgages were transferred in during the REMIC open periond (the 90 days).
In fact, and in part b/c of all the MERS crap, they were not transferred–if they were transferred at all–until after the loan went into default and the bank had decided to foreclose.
In some instances the transfer did not occur until after after the foreclosure process had already started, and we have seen some forecloure cases dismissed b/c the plaintiff did not have the mortgage in hand at the time the Foreclosure Summons & Complaint was filed.
However, the issue of the bank’s stnading is deeper than that. The way the P & A agreements are worded, Trustee lacked the legal capacity to even accept a late or non conforming loan.
This was a good clause in terms of keeping the investors safe from tax liability, but means that many of the trusts are pretty empty, and may be completely empty.
Sort of a bad analogy. If I don’t register to vote, I lack the legal capacity to vote. It does not matter if the deadline for me to vote by mail has passed or not, because I lack the legal capaicty to do so in the first instance.
So, it does not matter if there was an attempt to assign the loan after the expiration of the REMIC open period. Assignment requires BOTH transfer and ACCEPTANCE. If one party to the assignment lacks the capacity to accept, the attempted transfer would be a nullity.
But the investors should be protected fromthe IRS.
So, my take on this is the opposite. There would be no tax case, b/c the trustee lacked the leagl capacity to accept a mortgage that would vitiate the REMIC status.
It would also mean many of the alleged transfers are nullities, which is why all this backed forgery is happening. Otherwise, many of these RMBS are big empty bags of nothing and the fraud is a continuing fraud and it may be that the state of limitations has not yet begun to run.
So there!
A hedge fund person (Tangent Capital Partners money management person who told Fox business news 4 weeks ago that “Obama Ignored Housing Crisis for Years”) now asserts that “Schneiderman is also concerned with more basic issues of equity for investors”?
Funny how Chris Whalen does not mention the role of the hedge funds and the investment banks that were the prime movers in all this and who are now trying to play the role of wounded investors.
Sadly, as to the law that he mentions, he is correct – the AG can tear down US banking as he makes a few hedge fund guys richer (no homeowners win but a a few pension funds might get a dime or two as 99% of the winnings will go to the hedge funds and investment banks that started this mess). Interesting the Whalen does not discuss conspiracy to defraud – a topic that was discussed on coffee breaks in offices around New York as folks observed the hedge fund/investment bank activities in real time back in the 90′s and early 2000′s. I can recall the glee a hedge fund person expressed at a convention in 2000 as he explained the rating agencies had been convinced that diverse risk geography trumped bad credit data – a collection of C assets thus becoming AAA.
Now Chris Whalen repeats the standard hedge fund line – “give me his money because ….. (fill in the blanks)”.
It is continuing fraud, in fact, it is “legalized theft”, as DDay has very properly termed it.
I hope, Cynthia, that you are correct, that each continuing INSTANCE of fraudulent behavior starts the “statute clock” ticking again, and anew.
Very interesting theories you advance.
Several questions arise. First, WHO has the specific power to pursue these theories? Second, if these and other theories of the enforcement of due process of law are NOT followed then, WHO or WHAT, person or “entity” has the legal “standing” to suggest (or to insist)that theories, such as you promulgate, in fact DO deserve and MUST be pursued?
This is the point I have to ask a much bigger question, which I feel deserves serious and continuing thought, especially given what we are witnessing today. THE question is this: What is the actual PURPOSE of a legal system, is it merely to provide employment opportunities for lawyers, judges, prison wardens, and police officers, or, is the purpose of an honest legal system to serve and secure the interests of all of the members of society?
If it is the latter, then we must conclude that whenever a legal system no longer (assuming that ever it did) serves those greater interests, that it is corrupt, and that, ultimately and always, it falls to “the people” to “remedy” such a situation. Should “we” actually be, as many here suggest, at that “point” of corruption, then when shall we, all of us, begin to discuss the “nature” of what that “remedy” might be, and what it shall require of us?
I have said, to you, Cynthia, that I regard the “role” of money and the “issues” surrounding “standing” to be essential, underlying problems with our legal system. That system possesses, as well, what I term a “fatal flaw”, which is, simply, this … “our” system of law CANNOT, apparently, manage or allow itself to examine itself when, clearly, it is failing … when the Rule of Law, itself, is under assault and unrelenting attack.
If you or any others who might wish to “play”, might be willing to engage in discussion around these too many questions, then I should be most appreciative.
DW
Agreed. We will get it “in the end”.
“Our government has a very large pile of sh*t to sweep under the rug.”
—————-
You’re gonna need a bigger rug.
As always, your discussions and the questions they pose are insightful but also very troubling. When a country has a president and justice department that refuse to uphold the “rule of law”, you have a real crisis. And, when the states are coerced to cooperate in this travesty, the people are faced with a very dangerous predicament.
Since Obama took office, we have found preferential treatment given to the 1% and the rights of the 99% have been trampled on and ignored.
I used to argue vociferously to those people who would claim we are devolving into a police state with an active and mighty powerful oligarchy. That it no longer matters who we vote for, we get the same result.
I didn’t use to be “afraid” for our country. I am now.
Well, if you’re gonna get serious on us, at least it’s good that you’ve got it exactly right.
Thanks.
I learn a lot hangin’ around yous guys.
Related (from HuffingtonPost):
The only thing Schniederman is going to focus on is running for, or getting appointed to, higher office.
Well, newcarguy, thanks for playing …
I note that L. Randall Wray makes a few points as well:
http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2012/03/01/when-is-foreclosure-theft-when-the-mortgage-is-recorded-at-mers/
DW