Prosecutor Threw Away Slam-Dunk Cases Against Weinstein and Trump Kids

[babylonsister]

Prosecutor Threw Away Slam-Dunk Cases Against Weinstein and Trump Kids
Hollywood’s king caught on tape. The president’s children caught in emails. Manhattan’s district attorney has no good excuse for letting them all walk.
Bennett Gershman
10.11.17 5:00 AM ET

snip//

For a prosecutor the factual question is whether Weinstein in fact made sexual contact with her without her consent. That’s the charge, and the victim will testify to that, and the tape strongly corroborates her account. Vance’s claim that the crime is not prosecutable because there is insufficient evidence of criminal intent is not only unconvincing, it is preposterous.

Moreover, Vance’s criticism of the police for not involving his office in the victim’s taping of Weinstein is a very weak excuse. Whatever the protocols for police-prosecution cooperation, it’s not clear how the DA’s involvement in the recorded trap of Weinstein would have made a difference, or would have made the case more probative, or Weinstein’s guilt more convincing. The recording is damning as is.

As with the Weinstein case, Vance has given a number of explanations for dropping the Trump case. He claimed there was insufficient evidence that the Trumps had broken the law, but also that the victims were really not victims and in any event they were unwilling to cooperate with his office.

Vance’s refusal to prosecute the Trumps is just as disheartening, and just as difficult to explain.

Last week, as reported in an exhaustive report by The New Yorker, ProPublica, and WNYC, Vance overruled prosecutors in his office who were making a clearly prosecutable case against Ivanka and Donald Jr. for luring prospective buyers of a Trump luxury development in SoHo by making false and deceptive promotions. The Trumps, as the prosecution’s evidence shows convincingly, used Enron-like come-ons to intentionally inflate the value of the development to induce investors to buy units.

The prosecutors discovered numerous emails by the Trumps which showed how they repeatedly lied to buyers. The emails, according to persons who viewed them, had the Trumps discuss how to coordinate the false information they had given to prospective buyers; Donald Jr. tell a broker that nobody would ever find out because people on the email chain or in the Trump Organization knew about the deception; and that the Trumps approved, knew of, agreed to, and intentionally inflated the numbers to make more sales. In other words, the emails proved the Trumps knew what they were doing was wrong.

Based on these emails, documentary evidence, and interviews with buyers, the prosecutors had assembled sufficient evidence of the Trumps’ criminal conduct to impanel a grand jury. But that was before Vance met with the Trumps’ lawyer, Marc Kasowitz. Before and after Vance overruled his prosecutors, Kasowitz made large donations to his re-eletion campaign.

more...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prosecutor-threw-away-slam-dunk-cases-against-weinstein-and-trump-kids

[JI7]

1. they get paid off. i think this goes on more than people think and since they themselves are in

charge of investigating and bringing charges not much is done unless a larger higher level investigation was done.

[Raster]

2. Justice, like health care, is contingent on one's financial resources.

[Hortensis]

43. Oh, please, guys. Theory #2: We don't know half of it, are too lazy to even go find out

what information is currentlyi available to the public, and too dishonest and self indulgent to hold judgement when adopting a facile cynicism based on ignorance is so much easier.

Gotta say, #2 carries it 95% of the time. Of course, when wealthy people get off it's usually not for a quid that's neither offered nor piad, but for other reasons. Like the power of money.

[Cicada]

3. If he acted for money why did he return it before the meeting?

The claim is that Vance acted in favor of Ivanka because her lawyer had given him $25,000. If that was why he did it why did he return the money before he met with the lawyer? My understanding of bribery is that the bribed person keeps the money. I tell you - give me ten thousand dollars to destroy photos of you with another women, then I give the $10,000 back before I destroy the photos. Does that make any sense to you? It is a very stupid theory. Also why would Vance really care about the contribution? He had won re-election with 91% of the vote. The last time a sitting Manhattan DA lost re-election was 1915. The idea Vance acted for that $25,000 is something only a Moron would believe. Just like the theory I destroyed the photos beacause of the $10,000 I gave back to you. It did not happen. Bribery is taking an official action for something of value. Vance had gotten nothing of value when he acted. He did not have $25,000 and a $25,000 campaign contribution would have exactly zero impact on his 100% odds of being re-elected anyway. Millions think Comey was crooked in his decision to not prosecute Hillary. That proves millions see corruption when it is not there. This is just another example of how stupid humans often are.

[Angry Dragon]

5. BUT...........a larger amount came later

[SonofDonald]

9. And there you are, it just couldn't be that the prosecutor

Thought what a dumbass and returned the money, then got it by another less visible means?.

That never happens?

[Cicada]

24. If he were corrupt he would have prosecuted

You have zero evidence to support your view that Vance expected future contributions.

In addition, even if he expected money, why would he decide to become a criminal for that money? The subsequent campaign contribution has zero relationship to whether he would win re-election which is presumably his cottupt motivation. Vance had won re-election with 91% of the vote. A sitting Manhattan DA last lost re-election in 1915. In the upcoming election Nov 7 he has no opponent. He is running unopposed. That subsequent contribution has zero value to Vance. The idea that a good liberal democrat would decide to become a crook for something with zero impact on his life is absurd.

In fact we’re he corrupt he WOULD have prosecuted. Because choosing not to prosecute the daughter of a critic of Obama makes you mad. It makes Democrats mad. The only conceivable way for a democratic incumbent Manhattan DD to not be re-elected would be to do something which would make democrats mad - like not prosecute Ivanka.

The idea that a good liberal Democrat would corruptly pass on prosecuting the child of the man hated by democrats for a completely meaningless campaign contribution is as likely as Donald Trump being able to do a backwards double summersault.

Really.

[SonofDonald]

25. Did I mention evidence? Nope n/t

[Cicada]

28. Thank you for agreeing with me

And if I misunderstood your intentions then I apologize

[SonofDonald]

50. I didn't agree with you, pretty huge jump there.

Innocent/guilty, I have no idea, but it sure looks bad.

Notice the question marks I used in my post?, this means I'm pondering an idea, saying that I agree with you isn't anywhere near correct.

End of conversation.

[Me.]

31. Really

Were he corrupt...who would do it since he was in charge and....lots of corrupt people don't get prosecuted...the current occupants of the WH being the proof of that. And your argument, made over and over, that not convicting Trump kids is proof of his credibility has no merit.

[Cicada]

34. My argument does have merit

The charge is that Vance acted for a campaign contribution, to increase the odds he will retain his job.

I have explained why choosing not to prosecute Ivanka does more to threaten his job security than choosing to prosecute her would.

Showing that he acted in a way which lowers the odds he will be re-elected has merit in rebutting the argument he acted to keep his job.

[Cicada]

10. Which he also returned

The claim is that Cyrus Vance Jr, a liberal democrat with an unblemished record, a person who takes a salary of five percent of what he could earn in private practice, a person who as a private lawyer devoted large amounts of time to help those unable to afford a lawyer, is a crook, choosing to commit the crime of bribery, to help the daughter of an opponent of Obama. And that he commits a horrible crime for a campaign contribution after he won re-election with 91% of the vote, in an office where no sitting incumbent had been defeated since 1915. It did not happen. That theory is brain dead stupid.

About Weinstein: the women had twice before made charges against others and then refused to cooperate in prosecution, wasting scarce prosecutorial resources. There was a tape of Weinstein obtained by the police but the police did not provide the tape to the DA office. And had the police consulted with the DA office they would have been told what Weinstein needed to say to meet the requirements of NY law to have committed a crime. Weinstein’s words did not satisfy the requiremts of violating NY law. Also the alleged crime was a misdemeanor. So the lady twice before refused to cooperate in prosecution, there was insufficient evidence that a crime happened other than her word - which she was unlikely to even agree to provide - to prove a misdemeanor.

Vance is a money ball prosecutor, allocating resources to get maximum bang for prosecutorial bucks. He recently decided to forego 20,000 misdemeanor prosecutions per year in order to greatly increase success in prosecuting more serious crimes. That means many criminals will go scot free but all prosecutors must make choices about how to best use their limited resources. That does not prove they are corrupt.

[rusty fender]

49. The Lady/Man

doth protest too much, methinks

[Me.]

6. Wow...Such An Adamant Defense Of Vance

Thread after thread

[Cicada]

11. Because the theory Vance is a crook is brain dead stupid

I get angry when innocent people are smeared. I got angry when day care operators were convicted of satanic crimes and served many years in jail in a prosecution straight out of the Salem witch trials. I got angry when Trump supporters yelled lock her up about Hillary. I got angry when the press, especially the New York Times, ran article after article claiming the Clintons were corrupt in their Whitewater partnership with Mr McDougal.

And I am very disappointed to see those here who should know better act in a similar way about the liberal good-hearted democrat Cyrus Vance Jr.

Should I just sit back in silence when I see such an obvious injustice?

[Me.]

15. Quit Trying To Deflect With The Clintons

As for your defense...this pretty much says it all..."the liberal good-hearted democrat Cyrus Vance Jr."

[Cicada]

27. I think liberal good-hearted Democrats are not likely crooks

And you have zero good reason to think Vance is a crook. The claim is that he did it for a campaign contribution. That is absurd. He was re-elected with91% of the vote. The last sitting Manhattan DA to be voted out of office was in 1915. On Nov 7 he has no opponent. He is running unopposed.

Indeed were he crooked, hungry to be re-elected, as you seem to believe, the very last thing he would do is something helpful to the daughter of Trump who is hated by New York voters.

Tell me why you think the corrupt Vance would do about the only thing he could do to risk his re-election.

The theory Vance acted corruptly for a meaningless campaign contribution is completely absurd by doing the one thing which might cost him votes is absurd in my opinion.

[Me.]

29. & Stop Making Up Things

Nowhere did I use the word crook. However, I do think he has mishandled his purview as DA and would love to see him voted out. It's a shame he is running unopposed but let's see what is in store for him in the future because all eyes will be on the job he is doing from here on out. And please get your history straight...the malevolence toward the Trumps is a recent incarnation. Further, your insistance on "liberal good-hearted Democrat" is mystifying because unless you know him personally you have no proof of that and if you are associated with him you have no pushing an agenda forward.

[Cicada]

32. Deciding not to prosecute because of a campaign contribution is a crime

If you do not claim that he acted because of the contribution then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I do not know Mr Vance but I know he was endorsed by Caroline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy Jr, and both founders of the Innocence Project. I believe their endorsements mean he is a liberal democrat.

Mr Trump has attacked Obama for many years. Obama blasted Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner.

Vance did not pass on prosecution because he got a campaign contribution from the Trump lawyer. That claim, and maybe that is not your claim but is instead the claim of others, is illogical.

[Me.]

35. And Lots Of Credible People

Endorsed Tillerson who are now not so thrilled. He was endorsed on the basis of his father whose name was bandied about all over the place when he ran. And this may come as a shock to you but not all liberal Dems are as pure as the driven snow. And you don't know why he passed on prosecuting certain people, not even the career prosecutors in his office understand it.

[Cicada]

60. People dont know why he passed on prosecuting?

Like Ivanka? He didn’t pass for a campaign contribution, returned before he met with her lawyer, because a campaign contribution means nothing to someone who won re-election with 91% of the vote, not even opposed this year, in an office where the incumbent last lost in 1915. You say people don’t know why he passed. But OBVIOUSLY it wasn’t for the contribution and no one has any plausible argument foe a corrupt motive.

Like Weinstein? After the female head of sex crimes studied it for two weeks and concluded she could not prove the elements of the crime. There is a recording where Weinstein agrees he touched her breasts. The law requires touching to degrade the person or to get sexual gratification. The lady involved said they were discussing the possibility that she could work as a lingerie model. She said Weinstein asked if her breasts were real and then felt her breasts. Do you think you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt Weinstein did not touch her breasts to see if she had natural breasts needed to be an effective lingerie model? The seasoned female prosecutor in charge of sex crimes decided she could not. That was her conclusion, not something Vance decided.

So with no good reason whatsoever people charge Vance with corruption.

That is disgraceful.

[Me.]

61. His Performance In Office Has Been Disgraceful

and it is finally being focused on.

[Cicada]

62. Tell me what he has done that is disgraceful

I have been told he was disgraceful because he did not prosecute Ivanka because he got a campaign contribution which he returned. That is OBVIOUSLY FALSE since the odds of him being voted out of office were zero.

I have been told he was disgraceful because he did not prosecute Weinstein, a decision made by the experienced female head of sex crimes because she OBVIOUSLY could not prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And where the only witness twice before had made similar charges but then refused to cooperate in prosecution so no conviction resulted. To prove at great cost a misdemeanor where the punishment would probably be 40 hours of community service. Spend hundreds of thousand dollars on a case he would 99% certain lose and where there is a very real chance no crime happened (feeling her up to see if she has natural breasts required to be a lingerie model is not a crime in New York). You call that disgraceful? No a prosecution would be the disgrace, not failing to prosecute.

I have been told he should not have prosecuted a bank where many loan applications contained fraudulent financial statements, a fact NO ONE DENIES. I have done work for banks and savings and loans, related to their financial strength, and it is my opinion that banks know when many of its clients are submitting fraudulent financial statements. A disgrace to prosecute? I don’t buy it for a second.

So maybe he has acted in a disgraceful way. But nothing posted on DU has demonstrated that in my opinion. He may be a bad prosecutor but if so why do people only post garbage like the examples above?

[Me.]

63. Do Stop

People have told you over and over and just like Vance you are not listening. It is therefore pointless. You see him as a goodhearted liberal Dem who couldn't possibly do anything wrong or be a terrible DA and others don't. End of story.

[WinkyDink]

58. Democrats can commit crimes, too, ya know.

[babylonsister]

16. Thank you. Protesteth too much?

Makes me wonder, too.

[Me.]

17. Way Too Much

[Cicada]

33. Do you wonder about those who claim Hillary did not break the law with emails?

Do you wonder if those who defend her protest too much when mobs yell Lock her up?

I often stand up for those who are unfairly attacked. It seems to be part of my nature.

I do not know Cyrus Vance Jr, have never met him or anyone who knows him, and live in California. My only motive in defending him is my aversion to innocent people being unfairly attacked.

Do you think we should be silent when an innocent person is attacked?

[mythology]

19. When a mob gets going it takes courage to point out logic

If the conspiracy theory starts talking about "oh he returned the money, but that just means he got it another way" without even the slightest bit of evidence it is just silly. An incompetent theory should be stood up to. It takes far more integrity to fight against the mob than to just go along with it.

[Me.]

21. That Is Just Plain Silly

First...there is no mob and disagreeing does not constitute such. And, as far as Vance goes...you might consider that there are those of us who have disapproved of the way he's handled his office for a long time now. As far as I'm concerned, he rec'd the backing that put him in office because of his father's name and reputation. From Strauss-Kahn to the Trumps to this and on his tenure has been questionable. Further, I don't associate blanket adoration and deflection at the expense of the Clintons, a sign of integrity.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. There's also the case of Abacus Federal Savings Bank:

http://lawmagazine.bc.edu/2017/05/abacus-small-enough-to-jail/

In the aftermath of the economic shockwave of the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other banking giants were deemed “too big to fail.” None of them was ever criminally prosecuted in connection with the crisis.

Only one bank was. Abacus Federal Savings Bank.

Small, community-focused, and owned by the Sung family that includes alumnae Vera ’90 and Chanterelle Sung ’04, the bank was an easy target—some would later say, the crisis’ scapegoat—after Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. brought the bank (but not any family members) up on felony charges for mortgage fraud.

Five long and painful years later, the bank, which serves a predominately Chinese American clientele in Manhattan’s Chinatown, was acquitted by a jury in 2015.

[Me.]

39. That Was On My Mind

With my 'on and on'. And am I correct in remembering that it was the bank itself who brought the malfeasance of a single employee to the attention of the authorities?

[SonofDonald]

26. Over and over and over again

That must mean..........

[JI7]

7. i'm not just talking about campaign contributions .

[Thor_MN]

18. If a traceable amount is returned, but the action is still done...

The simplest answer is not that it did not happen, it is that it was replaced with untraceable funds.

The campaign contribution was an opening negotiation, akin to making an appointment to dicuss terms.

[mythology]

20. No that's not the simplest explanation

The simplest explanation is the donation was returned and no bribery occurred. That requires fewer steps and no assumptions.

Instead your "theory" requires that a previous campaign donation was meant to serve as a bribe for a theoretical future crime, the brilliant masterminds then realizing that would look bad, returning the donation and then committing another felony. Oh and it presumes that a guy who was reelected with 90% of the vote was desperate for a relatively paltry $25,000 and that a guy with an otherwise good record is actually on the take.

Notice which paragraph is smaller.

[Thor_MN]

23. That the money was returned indicates that a bribe was made.

If the "quo" was performed with the "quid" returned, the obvious answer is the "quid" took another route.

Your "theory" relies on the contribution being a "relatively paltry amount", which is ridiculous in light of how traceable and limited contributions are. It was a placeholder, an amount large enough to be noticed, but not large enough to be totally obvious. If it had been a truly paltry amount, say $2500, it would not have needed to be returned as it would have never been noticed.

Word counts in your obviously puffed up description is not an indication of complexity.

One only need ask, if the money was not a bribe, why was it returned?

[Angry Dragon]

4. Vance is scum.........Prison

[Cicada]

12. No. Vance is a squeaky clean liberal democrat being smeared

Hillary should not go to prison. The Clintons were not crooked in their Whitewater partnership with McDougal. The day care teachers in Southern California did not commit satanic crimes justifying their years in prison. The world is not being controlled by reptilian creatures from outer space taking human form. And Cyrus Vance Jr is not a crook.

It is extremely disappointing to me to see him so obviously smeared.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Compurgation? Really? How very medieval of you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compurgation

Compurgation, also called wager of law and oath-helping, was a defence used primarily in medieval law. A defendant could establish his innocence or nonliability by taking an oath and by getting a required number of persons, typically twelve, to swear they believed the defendant's oath. From Latin, com = with, purgare = make clean, cleanse, excuse.[1] Latin com is also an intensifier[2] and turns a word into the superlative form, so compurgation, by etymology, means 'to thoroughly clean or excuse'.

The wager of law was essentially a character reference, initially by kin and later by neighbours (from the same region as the defendant), often 11 or 12 men, and it was a way to give credibility to the oath of a defendant at a time when a person's oath had more credibility than a written record. It can be compared to legal wager, which is the provision of surety at the beginning of legal action to minimize frivolous litigation.

[ProfessorPlum]

41. I was with you until

"The world is not being controlled by reptilian creatures from outer space taking human form"

I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou

[Ken Burch]

46. How else can Paul Ryan be described

but as "a reptilian creature from outer space in human form"?

Or Stephen Mnuchin?

[ProfessorPlum]

53. Exactly

[Cicada]

48. Google Karen hudes about reptilian overlords

Karen worked at the World Bank. She gives every appearance of being sane. Yet she and amazingly many others are convinced we are ruled by Reptilian overlords. The tip off is that they have bigger than average skulls.

She apparently believes the movie Coneheads was a documentary.

I am NOT making this up.

[ProfessorPlum]

52. well, yeah. "They Live" basically blew the lid off of all of this

[tblue37]

66. Have you seen Steve Miller? Sean Hannity? Newt Gingrich? Steve Bannon? Trump himself?

Those are some darned big skulls!

[jrthin]

13. I hope the NY Daily News calls him out

Every single day until election. Too bad he is running unopposed.

[GoCubsGo]

8. His father must be spinning in his grave. n/t

[GreenEyedLefty]

14. 2 questions... I don't know much about procedure in cases like this.

1) can the cases be reopened?
2) can Vance the prosecutor, be prosecuted for this?

[Ken Burch]

45. 1) If the case wasn't dismissed, it can likely be re-opened within statute of limitations

or new charges can be filed.

2) Not sure if "prosecutorial misconduct" applies to refusing to prosecute.

[L. Coyote]

22. K & R. Corruption $$$$$$$$$$$ rules.

[miyazaki]

30. Ha, is this that bloodsucker who went after Abacus Bank? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Yep

https://www.google.com/search?q=vance+%22abacus+bank%22&oq=vance+%22abacus+bank%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2864.5408.0.6120.2.2.0.0.0.0.89.176.2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0._AQew75A4XI

[Cicada]

47. A small bank which commits fraud should go free?

No one denies that bank employees conspired with borrowers to use fake financial statements to get loans. 8 people pleaded guilty. The owners said they were shocked! Shocked! to learn that the applications were riddled with fraud and the jury believed them.

The prosecution of the bank was appropriate.

The issue is why no large banks were not also prosecuted.

Anywhere by anyone.

Regulators have claimed that settlements for civil financial fines is far more cost effective, that criminal prosecutions often lead to acquittals - as was the case of the owners of the small bank - etc.

That sounds an inadequate answer to me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. You seem to have "forgotten" that Abacus was found not guilty:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/business/dealbook/recent-setbacks-cast-harsh-light-on-cyrus-vance-the-manhattan-prosecutor.html

In June, a jury acquitted two senior officers of Abacus Federal Savings Bank in a mortgage fraud case that Mr. Vance sought to link to the financial crisis. He had charged the bank, which is in Chinatown, and more than a dozen employees with participating in a “systematic” scheme to sell fraudulent mortgages to Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored home finance company and a primary issuer of mortgage-backed securities.

But a few months after those acquittals, prosecutors with little fanfare all but acknowledged in a court filing that the Abacus case had been troubled from the start.

In the September court filing now under seal but reviewed by The New York Times, prosecutors working for Mr. Vance said the trial had been compromised by “unanticipated witness issues and evidentiary issues, as well as legal rulings that diverged from the legal positions the People adopted at the grand jury stage and urged at trial.”

The admission, however, is a little too late for some of the defendants, many of them Chinese immigrants, who have spent more than five years dealing with the fallout from a two-year investigation by Mr. Vance’s office and the filing of a 184-count indictment in 2012.

184 counts and no convictions...

When Abacus Bank Was Accused of Fraud

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/the-accused-jiayang-fan

By then, the Sung sisters had fired Ken Yu and two other employees and the bank had begun an internal investigation. It reported the findings to regulators and law enforcement and later hired outside investigators to examine the loan department. But Chen and Chi’s visit to the police had also triggered a criminal probe. On May 31, 2012, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., the Manhattan District Attorney, announced a hundred-and-eighty-four-count indictment against the bank, two of its supervisors, and nine of its former employees. The charges included residential-mortgage fraud, falsification of business records, and conspiracy. Abacus employees were marched through the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, handcuffed together. Some faced a maximum sentence of twenty-five years in prison.

Ten Abacus employees accepted plea deals in exchange for testifying against the bank, and Ken Yu became the star witness. The indictment alleged that, in order to approve mortgages for unqualified borrowers, the bank had systematically falsified loan-application documents, “inflating or exaggerating their assets, incomes, and job titles.” This resulted in “fraudulent mortgages” being sold to Fannie Mae, the federally backed mortgage company. Fannie Mae’s purchase of risky mortgages was a widespread problem during the subprime lending crisis, something that Vance emphasized in a press conference announcing the indictment. “If we’ve learned anything from the recent mortgage crisis, it’s that at some point, these schemes unravel and taxpayers can be left holding the bag,” he said...

...The jury’s deliberations began in late May and went on for nearly two weeks. Both sides seemed pessimistic about the outcome. Eventually, the judge implored the members of the jury to come to a verdict, and on June 3rd and 4th they found Abacus and its co-defendants not guilty on all counts.

What flavor *was* that Kool-aid?

[Cicada]

56. Yes, the jury believed the owners of the bank

But the financial statements were phony and it is hard for me to believe officials in the bank were not aware of what was going on. I had a bank as a client once, in an area of the City called China town, and the manager knew a great deal about reality and pretense among his customers.

I would bet that was true in this case also.

And to be honest I have little doubt that those who view Vance as crooked are the true consumers of flavor-aide. Stop smearing koolaid - it was flavor-aide, an inferior cheaper substitute for the real thing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. He tried to stage a show trial and failed badly- I think he's incompetent, not crooked

As Lawrence J. Peter put it, he "rose to the level of his incompetence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

[Cicada]

42. The bank used fake financial statements, 8 pleaded guilty

The bank used falsified financial statements.

No one denies that. 8 people pleaded guilty. The owners of the bank said they had no idea fake financial statements were used and the jury believed them.

But using fake financial statements is a crime and prosecution was justified.

No one defaulted because real estate values rose. But 8 people admitted that they used false financial statements. Poor little fraudsters is not a good defense for fraud.

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. *All* Abacus defendants were found not guilty on *all* charges:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/nyregion/abacus-bank-found-not-guilty-of-mortgage-fraud-and-other-charges.html

Abacus Bank Found Not Guilty of Mortgage Fraud and Other Charges

A jury found Abacus Federal Savings Bank and two of its senior officers not guilty of grand larceny and other charges on Thursday after a four-month trial, rejecting the Manhattan district attorney’s attempt to prove that the bank systematically lied for years to the Federal National Mortgage Association about the qualifications of its mortgage applicants.

After a court clerk read the 240 counts in the indictment and repeated the words “not guilty” after each one, members of the Sung family, which founded and owns the bank, wept and embraced one another in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. The charges included grand larceny, conspiracy, falsifying business records and residential mortgage fraud.

The bank’s founder, Thomas Sung, 79, said the office of the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., had persecuted a community bank with a misguided prosecution. Legal bills had drained his family’s resources, he said, costing more than $10 million, and had hamstrung the bank’s business for three years.

“This entire wrongful prosecution has exhausted a small community bank such as ours,” Mr. Sung said. “This is a gross injustice, not only to a small bank, but is casting a shadow on our community, that this community somehow condones or conducts illegal activity.

240 counts and not one stuck? To me, that implies one (or both) of the following:

1) Vance attempted to scapegoat Abacus Bank, and failed miserably in the attempt

2) Vance is incompetent to the point of being a menace to the public safety

[Cicada]

59. Many pleaded guilty. The financial statements were phony.

I had a bank client in the Chinatown of a big city. The manager knew in great detail the reality and the pretense of his customers. And to be honest there was a very high degree of pretense in that Chinatown, a very high rate of less than accurate financial reporting. I mentioned on one visit that they were probably getting a large number of IRA deposits (it was near April 15). The Chinese born manager told me that to have an IRA you had to have an Adjusted Gross Income. Looking out the window on Chinatown below he said “and in all of that there is not a single AGI.”

Forgive me if I suspect the bank was aware of the large number of false loan applications. But I think that in reality the managers were not really shocked! Shocked! To learn that many were lying on their loan applications.

That’s just the way it likely was in my not completely uninformed opinion. Those who manage banks know a lot more than some think. That is also why I think the big banks knew the great risks we faced which lead to the big recession. That is why I think there should have been many bankers sent to jail, bankers who claim they were unaware that their mortgage lending was based on a sea of fraud.

[uponit7771]

64. The post before yours said all of them were found not guilty, are the people you're referring to...

... a part of the same bank?

thx

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Yep. They pled out in exchange for transactional immunity, which didn't work for the Feds...

...as all the defendants that went to trial were acquitted.


716. Use Immunity, Transactional Immunity, Informal Immunity, Derivative Use

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-716-use-immunity-transactional-immunity-informal-immunity-derivative

Congress enacted the use immunity provisions in 1970, replacing a myriad of specialized immunity statutes enacted over the years for specialized purposes, such as the Atomic Energy Act, the Cotton Research and Promotion Act, the Connally Hot Oil Act, and the Merchant Marine Act. The new statutory scheme (located at 18 U.S.C. § 6001-6005) provides a mechanism by which the government may apply to the court for an order granting a witness limited immunity in all judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings. Section 6003 covers court and grand jury proceedings, § 6004 covers administrative hearings, and § 6005 covers congressional proceedings.

See Chapter 8 of the Federal Grand Jury Practice Manual for a more in depth discussion of immunity.

717. Transactional Immunity Distinguished

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-717-transactional-immunity-distinguished

Title 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement.

So in a farcial ending, all the convictions in the Abacus Bank case happened to witnesses
for the prosecution.

I won't call Vance a crook when "grossly incompetent" will serve nicely...

[Cicada]

67. Finally a reasoned statement

[dembotoz]

40. saw an interview re banking that prosecution will only occur if the prosecutor is absolutely sure of

a win

political suicide if you fight the good fight but do not win

so how do you define slam dunk?
we can assume trumps et al will lawyer up with the best money can buy
is your slam dunk a slam dunk against those folks?
hell even oj got off and i dont thing that loss was good for the prosecutions teams career.

may not be totally above the law but close enough that you do not risk it with your paycheck

[Ken Burch]

44. I think it comes down to being the child of a career diplomate and "insider".

Cyrus Jr. may just see it as "bad form" to prosecute fellow members of "the club".

[alarimer]

69. The essential problem of our political system in a nutshell.

Democratic "insiders" can be equally complicit.

[Not Ruth]

51. Prosecuter can still prosecute

[alarimer]

68. He took money to make them go away,

Vance is a corrupt piece of shit.

[babylonsister]

70. " They Had the Goods on Him"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/cyrus_vance_needs_a_better_explanation_for_not_prosecuting_harvey_weinstein.html

They Had the Goods on Him
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance needs a better explanation for why he didn’t charge Harvey Weinstein.
By Leon Neyfakh


Two years and six months ago, the Manhattan district attorney had an opportunity to charge Harvey Weinstein with a sex crime. On Tuesday, reports by the New Yorker and the Daily Beast detailed the series of events that led to this opportunity—and what happened after Cyrus Vance Jr.’s office decided not to pursue it. That decision is now under scrutiny, as is Vance’s credibility as an elected official.


“I’m not impressed by the decision to not go forward here,” said Matthew Galluzzo, who spent several years with the Sex Crimes Unit in the Manhattan DA’s office. “They’d prosecute 9 people out of 10 with the kinds of goods they had on him.”

more...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/cyrus_vance_needs_a_better_explanation_for_not_prosecuting_harvey_weinstein.html