[NYtimes] AP Study Finds $1.6B Went to Bailed-Out Bank Execs

I hardly think that is necessary. My point has been proven. We're done here.

Refresh my memory. In any case you were pretty gung ho about the guilt of those two. But then again, we'd be splitting hairs.

Um...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/10/news/companies/bear_stearns_case/index.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33836825

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but to me, there's just a wee bit of a diference between being found not guilty by a jury and have a case dismissed.

 

Our boy Icehouse claimed that nobody would ever even be charged or indicted, much less found guilty, because "the government would never give money to anybody it thought was defrauding them" - a ludicrous statement on its face. The mere fact that Choffster & Tanny were even indicted tends to undercut this conclusion, regardless of the conviction.

The fact that a number of parties since have been charged undercuts it even more.

Those were the claims that EDNY was left with - the main wire fraud claims had to be dismissed becuase they didn't have jurisdcition for (they had to voluntarily dismissed by EDNY US Atty in order to preserve them for SDNY).

 

In that case I stand corrected in that regard. I do remember disagreeing with something Icehouse had said.

You know, every source I read directly contradict what you said. They were acquitted by a jury of peers. Whether the prosecution decided to move the location was irrelevant. As a matter of fact, the articles I posted directly stated that they were found not guilty on all charges.

The prosecution decided to drop the case you say? Maybe. I'd like to see a court filing on that.

 

Hold on a second. I distinctly remember (though I could be wrong) Sammy, that Icehouse's claim was that Cioffi and Tannin will not be found guilty of fraud, as supposed to being charged. Refresh my memory.

 

You didn't read closely enough:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=adMRekz7o4Yw

Read thsi thread, he swears up and down six ways from Sunday that no bank will ever be prosecuted by the government, see his last post:

Thus far we have Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs each charged with Fraud. That's a bank. In fact that is two/three banks. So I don't know what else I have to do. Is Goldman a bank? Yes. Is it charged with fraud due to subprime CDO's? Yes. Game over.

 

Oh I read very carefully. I read that very article when it came out (along with a bunch of others). I think it is you who didn't. Cioffi and Tannin faced no fewer than six counts of charges. One for conspiracy to commit securities fraud (not guilty), two for wire fraud, two for securities fraud (not guilty) and one for insider trading (not guilty).

There was one count of wire fraud that was dismissed by prosecution because it allegedly took place in SDNY instead of EDNY. They decided to dismiss that suit and file in Manhattan instead. It is not clear whether this is one of the counts cited above but that still leave at least one wire fraud case, not guilty.

How did you get from that the main count was dropped? The prosecution is preparing cases for the other not guilty charges in the civil court, where the burden of proof is less stringent. But to me, common sense says securities fraud is a criminal offense for the criminal court. And here we are, moving it to the civil courts after it got tossed out of the criminal one.

So you have Merrill Lynch/BoA/Ken Lewis getting "forced" by the government to get the merger done, which led to the fraud. Then you have Cioffi and Tannin winning their securities fraud case.

Yes, technically they are still charged with wire fraud, which I doubt was your primary intent when you said they committed fraud/are toast, so you beat Icehouse on a technicality.

 

Thread necromancy version 3 -

And this week it's CitiGroup's turn to pay for fraud in connection with MBS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/b...85-million-to-settle-sec-charges.html?_r=1&hp

Icehouse, if you're out there buddy, I have never seen a person lose a sig bet more spectacularly.

In the time since you made the statement above, 2 (and arguably 3) of the 5 biggest banks have been charged with fraud by federal regulators in connection with mortgages, and that's just in the narrowest definition of the term (there's probably more, I haven't even bothered to research it).

I don't think i've ever actually won a sig bet on the BBS, though I have lost them, and it's really unfair of you to deprive me of this opportunity.

 

Oops, missed this thread. I guess you somehow missed this part of my post:

I mean, it was in the same post that you quoted, but whatever.

I guess you also missed this part in the article that you linked:

And this part:

I think my point was quite clear. From going over the thread again, other posters like MFW seem to get my point.

 

No, I didn't forget, that's why I quoted it.

The case was filed against Citigroup directly, they were a defendant. That's why it's captioned SEC v. Citigroup, No. 11-cv-7387 (S.D.N.Y.).

The case against Goldman Sachs was filed against Goldman Sachs directly They were a defendant. That's why it's captioned SEC v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No 10-cv- 3329 (S.D.N.Y.).

That's precisely why you lost.

No, you did not expressly limit your prediction/terms of the bet to criminal fraud prosecutions, rather than civil fraud charges.

You very *confidently*, and *repeatedly* assserted that the government would not accuse them of any fraud, whatsoever. (the SEC, btw, can't file criminal actions by law, so it doesn't make sense to argue/bet otherwise)...in fact you said the following as an example of what would be you losing the bet:

This links to an SEC civil fraud prosecution, of the exact same type they filed against B of A, Citigroup, and GS in 2010 and 2011. You set the terms of the bet in this fashion. The terms have been fulfilled. You lost.

 

Again you keep missing, or conveniently ignoring this part:

Did Citigroup decide to commit fraud? Did senior management at Citigroup get together and say let's defraud some folks, like they did at Enron and Worldcom (specific examples I gave to highlight my exact point)? You need to read post #71 again, and stop conveniently ignoring the parts of it.

 

The SEC filed a complaint alleging that "Citigroup" committed the fraud, and that they acted with intent to defraud - so yes.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp-pr2011-214.pdf

Look, this is the exact same type of action that you cited as an exmple of you losing the bet when you pulled up the action against Merrill Lynch. The company is being charged with liability via actions that are legally assignable to the company itself. The concept of a company being responsible for actions underlies the entire concept of corporate personhood, from contracts to Citizen United to anything in between.

Ergo, You lost the bet.

 

Did Citigroup, as in the powers to be there, decide to commit fraud (as in the examples I noted to explicitly note my point) or did some employees at Citigroup commit fraud which got the company named in a suit? It's not that complex and you are better than this/smarter than this. I clarified exactly what I mean like 5 times. Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

You are relying heavily on this verbage, which would make sense if you just completely ignored every other single post I made. I'm clearly referring to Citigroup, THE COMPANY OR SR MGMT WHO RUNS THE COMPANY, saying let's be crooked (i.e. Worldcom or Enron), not some dudes that work there, get busted and the firm is held somewhat responsible. A company being listed as a defendant or being sued does not mean the company as a whole decided to commit wrongful acts. If a Walmart cashier decides to sell drugs on the job and Walmart is named in the suit does that mean Walmart, as a whole, wants to sell drugs at their stores? Why are you conviniently ignoring this???

Here:

Here:

No, I'm not referring to the company being labeled in a lawsuit. I'm referring to the company as a whole (the powers to be in that company) deciding to commit fraud. Again, you are much smarter than this.

Here:

You are playing wordplay games now just as you were then. It should be quite evident to anyone reading my posts exactly what I meant.

All of Post 71.

Here in Post 73:

It's not that complex and I'm not the only poster that can see you are full of it, as it relates to this matter:

Yes, full of it.

 

Yes, that's what they alleged, and why they filed the Complaint against Citigroup.

I'm not sure how much more black & white it can be. Through the series of actions and allegations described, CITIGROUP Global Marketswas being prosecuted for the actions it was alleged to have taken, just like GS was prosecuted, just like BAC was prosecuted, just like Merrill Lynch was prosecuted in the one you cited as an example. ​

 

I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see where Sr Mgmt at Citigroup decided to defraud people. I'm failing to see where Citigroup as a whole decided to be fradulent, like Worldcom and Enron did. Where is the distinction that this was the company as a whole or Sr Mgmt looking to get over, as opposed to a few select employees or a department? Actually...it's not what they alleged. What they alleged is a desk there did wrong. This is from your link:

And this:

Looks to me like some dudes in a certain department did something wrong and the company was held liable for it. Are you arguing that that's the same as the company itself or Sr Mgmt there decided the company is going to commit fraud? I only made that distinction a few times in this thread, such as in Post 41, Post 54, Post 65, Post 69 or Post 73.

Do you understand what I mean when I say "the company committing fraud"? I'm sure you do but will ask just to see what your response is. I mean, I'm not sure how much more black and white I can be than saying the company as a whole or Sr Mgmt isn't committing fraud, or that we can find isolated incidents of employees committing fraud behind management's back (yes, Sr Mgmt) in any industry and that one of these incidents can take a company down.

 

Yes, it is the exact same, it is a fact that "the company being held liable"...is "the same as the company itself."

The company is being charged with wrongdoing, because the company is being deemed as having acted through it' officers and agents. There is in fact, no other basis for entity liablity other than this basis.


There is no legal distinction between a complaint filed against the company because it was "the company as a whole" or "senior management' - it is a yes or no answer. Either the company is charged with liability, or it si not

This basis is the same as when you wrote this years ago, and cited an identical complaint based on an identical legal theory as an example of a situation in which you would lose the bent:

You. Lose.

 

No, it's not the exact same and you know thats BS. Yes the company is being held liable. That happens in damn near every suit where a company can get in trouble due to the actions of it's employees. For you to attempt to pawn that off as the same as the company as a whole or Sr Mgmt deciding to do wrong is....well, fradulent. Do better.

 

There is no difference between "the company" and "the company as a whole" it's the same entity legally, just like you and "you as a whole" are not distinct.

The fact that you didn't know that companies are regarded by law liable for acts of their employees, officers, agents authorized to be acting on their behalf is a failing on your part prior to setting the terms of the wager, such as your retroactive attempt to claim you were only talking about senior management. Though I think you did know this...since you cited the Merrill Lynch example, which is the exact same context.

This concept is extraordinarily basic; when a McDonald's employee gives you a scalding hot coffee, it's McDonald's acting, just like when Goldman Sachs, Citi et al issue offering documents in their name, for fees, and containing misrepresentations in them, it's them acting; of course they are on the hook for fraud, and subject to prosecution. Which is of course, what happened here, despite your strident and, what you now must obviously recognize as naive, and of course - embarrassing - insistence to the contrary.

Lose a sig bet, pay the penalty. And the penalty is apparently the single stupidest sequence of revisionism since giddyup nearly put up his dukes.

 

Actually it is FOR THE TERMS OF THIS BET, and I made that distinction clear when I noted Sr Mgmt or the company choosing to commit fraud, and not some individuals that work for the company. And this was stated and clarified in MULTIPLE posts, such as this one:

What I meant is made quite clear by anyone that can read. You choose to ignore my distinction in MULTIPLE posts based on your wordplay. Quite fradulent.

Since you haven't found any cases for what I bet on...not what you choose to invent/create in a bet based on legal jargon...I would appreciate it if you pay your penalty and change your sig. Not just for losing, but for wasting our time with this BS wordplay.

 

And you lost this bet, when the SEC decided that it was the company committing fraud, which is why they sued BOA, Citigroup, and - as companies - for the company's commisssion of fraud, by way of the company's submission of fraudulent offering documents, and the company's scienter, inter alia.

The "company" vs. "company as a whole" distinction - which as stated before, has no legal basis - is something you made 2 years later - i.e. yesterday, when you realized how thorougly you'd been beaten.

Just like in the case that you cited as an exemplar, in which the SEC decided that Merrill Lynch, the company was to be charged with fraud for submitting fraudulent offering documents.

You lost, and no matter how much of a clown you act like afterwards, you will bear the deep, piercing, pulsing shame of having shot your mouth off on the internet and been burned for it. I will remember this next time I ask a kid with an accounting degree from Morehouse for legal advice.

 

They sued the company because the company is liable for the action's that it's employees commit. I noted that 3 years ago and clearly made a distinction that I wasn't referring to that. Reading is fundamental.

These posts were made 3 years ago, not yesterday.

The reasoning behind these dudes getting hit is some random individuals doing wrong things. I made it quite clear that I wasn't referring to those situations in MULTIPLE posts. If you can't tell exactly what I meant from the last 3 sentences of the above post then you either can't comprehend or are trying to be fradulent. For the purposes of this bet, I made the distinction quite clear.

I have no shame, because I'm sure everyone who is reading this thread can read and can see you are full of manure. For the purposes of this bet, my distinction and exactly what I meant was made quite evident in MULTIPLE posts, 3 years ago. If you want to get "technical" to try to claim a win then you should have made those stipulations clear and evident 3 years ago, like I did in MULTIPLE posts. Us Morehouse guys have common sense and don't get duped simply because someone keeps screaming "I won, I won" based on wordplay. We know how to read, comprehend and decipher the message the other person was trying to get across. It's not that hard to do when they clarify it for you on numerous occassions. So the next time I meet a lawyer from whatever school you attended I'll make sure I spell out exactly what I mean in kid's terms as if he/she were a 10 year old.