Holder says no bank 'too big to indict,' more financial cases coming

[Newsjock]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said Friday that no bank is "too big to indict" and that the Justice Department has more cases coming involving "significant financial institutions" as it continues to investigate Wall Street misconduct.

"I think people just need to be a little patient," Holder said, according to a transcript of an interview with MSNBC to air at noon Pacific time Friday. "I know it's been a while. But we have other things that are in the pipeline."

... "There are no institutions that are too big to indict," Holder said in the interview with Ari Melber, co-hosts of MSNBC's "The Cycle."

"There are no individuals who are in such high-level positions that they cannot be indicted, criminally investigated," he said. "And we have brought charges against thousands of people" in the nearly five years he has been in office.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-eric-holder-wall-street-banks-too-big-to-indict-20140124,0,6115949.story

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Now that the statute of limitations on fraud has expired...

I'm sure that some really exciting stuff is coming up.

[Moliere]

15. +1 The timing is almost too perfect

[liberal_at_heart]

17. +1

[1000words]

18. Exactly. Asses have been covered, emails deleted, papers destroyed ...

Now the gubmint man wants to bring "justice."

Psssssstttt ... they've gotten away.

[roguevalley]

23. Eric Holder, hand maiden in the Dimond Dance of Doom for you and me.

Wall Street says, "ZOW! WHAT A GREAT SHOW!"

And the band played on ...

[SoapBox]

19. +1

[woo me with science]

22. Thank you.

We're not supposed to notice that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Notice what? ...

Under 18 U.S.C.§ 3293 the limitations period for criminal charges for bank fraud as well as wire fraud and mail fraud that "affects a financial institution" is 10 years.

That, by my guess, leaves another 5, or so, more years remaining.

[TM99]

71. Please reference this document.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

Unless otherwise stated in the list at the end of the document, crimes committed under 18 U.S.C.§ 3293 would fall into the 5 year statue of limitations. It is not listed as being in the 10 year statue of limitations.

So yes, it does look like this is an after-the-event political blustering and nothing more. It has been six years since Obama took office. I would not take any bets on this administration (who has proven themselves to be quite cozy with Wall Street) pursuing any meaningful criminal indictments of the ringleaders of the 2008 financial crisis.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Here ya go ...

No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—

(1) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033, or 1344;

(2) section 1341 or 1343, if the offense affects a financial institution; or

(3) section 1963, to the extent that the racketeering activity involves a violation of section 1344;

unless the indictment is returned or the information is filed within 10 years after the commission of the offense.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3293.

Pre-emptive sourcing ... for the hard to convince.

§ 1341. Frauds and swindles.

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/8000-1250.html

And ...

§ 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

[Codified to 18 U.S.C. 1343]

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/8000-1250.html

And ...

§ 1344. Bank fraud.

Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice--

(1) to defraud a financial institution; or

(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;

shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

[Codified to 18 U.S.C. 1344]

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/8000-1250.html

Should I cite to the nearly quarter century of supporting precedent, or will you just accept that the law is the law and the SoL on financial institutions is 10 years?

[ronnie624]

84. As far as the statute of limitations is concerned,

it seems that what really matters, is who did what and when they did it. The crimes that led to the mortgage industry collapse, did not just materialize in 2008. Most of the activities that led to the real estate bubble and its subsequent collapse, occurred between 1997 and 2007. Creating a timeline would, no doubt, be a massive undertaking. Many analysts believe that the real culprit, is the collective deregulation of the mortgage, banking and investment industries, going all the way back to the late 70s. In my opinion, the biggest problem, is in a political system that allows our legislative process to be purchased with campaign donations, by a wealthy minority, to the detriment of working class people, and there will be no improvement in the situation, until this corruption of our political process is addressed.

[TM99]

87. I know you support this president and his administration

unconditionally from your posts.

However, concerning your links and mine, there is an obvious discrepancy. 3293 does NOT fall within the 10 year statue of limitation according to my referenced document from CRS from October of 2012. According to yours from Cornell, it does.

Would you care to explain why without snark?

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. Yes, I do support this President and his administration, though NOT unconditionally ...

I cannot open your link, so I cannot assess/speak to the discrepancy.

But the law, and the litigation, is clear on this ... the statute of limitations on fraud involving financial institutions is 10 years.

Again, I will post to the law:

No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—

(1) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033, or 1344;

(2) section 1341 or 1343, if the offense affects a financial institution[/b[; or

(3) section 1963, to the extent that the racketeering activity involves a violation of section 1344;

unless the indictment is returned or the information is filed within 10 years after the commission of the offense.

I don't know how it could be more clear. Maybe if you could clip the pertinent part(s) of you referenced document, I can respond more pointedly.

[TM99]

89. It is very clear.

My reading comprehension skills are quite high

I was not aware you could not reference the document.

It is Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law October 1, 2012 found here (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc) or here (www.crs.gov)

The appendix provides a complete list for the statue of limitations for ALL Federal crimes from terrorism, murder, hate crimes, to financial crimes such as these being discussed. The relevant law you quote (U.S.C.§ 3293) is NOT enumerated in the list for 10 years.

Nor is it found in the list for 8 years or 7 years. Several financial crimes found under 15 U.S.C. 7x and 8x including such things as Securities Act violations and Investment Company violations as well as 18 U.S.C. 1348 (securities and commodities fraud) are found in the list for 6 years.

It then specifically states that all other laws not mentioned in the previous 20, 10, 8, 7, & 6 statue of limitations fall under the 5 year statue. U.S.C.§ 3293 and all but one of the relevant subsections that you keep repeatedly posting are NOT listed in 20, 10, 8, 7, & 6 and therefore fall into the 5 year statue of limitation category. That is pretty cut and dry.

So with that said, why then is there a discrepancy? The Cornell reference says 10. The CRS reference says 5 and in specific instances 6. If the CRS document is correct, and given the title and publication I have no reason to question it, then yes, sadly, the statue of limitations for financial crimes perpetrated by Wall Street even if we start the clock at 2008 have either run out after 5 years or are very soon to run out in specific instances now at 6 years.

You may stick to your guns on this which is your prerogative of course. However, I am providing data which is refuting yours. Address that discrepancy and clear it up if you want myself and others to accept that this statue of limitations is indeed 10 years and that Holder is not just blowing smoke up our asses.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. it seems that

the document you are referencing only appears as a PDF ... I cannot open PDF on this computer. (And googling: www.crs.gov was equally fruitless)

I cannot explain the discrepancy other than to note ... you are comparing an "Overview of SoLs in federal criminal cases" to the actual text of the relevant section of the US Code. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partII-chap213-sec3293.htm) ... Overviews have been known to be incomplete.

And I further note, if the pdfed Overview and the www.crs.gov site (that neither I, nor google, were able to locate) indicates what you say ... that they seem to be the ONLY sources to indicate that 18 U.S.C. §3293 provides anything other than the 10 year SoL.

So, if after you enter "18 u.s.c.§ 3293" into the google machine and pull up the other 9 entries on the first page of search results (https://www.google.com/#q=18+u.s.c.%C2%A7+3293), you wish to stick to your guns ... well what can I say?

[TM99]

91. I appreciate your reply.

However, while it is an Overview, it is a thorough one provided by a government agency concerned with the execution of Federal Laws.

Until you can open the pdf and review the entire document, there really isn't much further to discuss.

I will note ironically that when I clicked your 'Google link', the pdf I provided is the 4th hit.

Only time will tell if it is indeed 10 years or less.

With past experiences as a guide with Holder and financial white collar crimes, I certainly won't be holding my breath either way for any meaningful investigations or convictions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. Okay, This will be my last post on this topic ...

I would have thought posting the text of the statute of Limitations law would have trumped an "Overview" and been the end of the argument; but apparently not. With this post, you will either accept that you are misinformed or you won't.

I got access to a computer that can display PDFs ... Here is what I find:

In the footnotes on page 3:

22 “No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate – (1) Section 215, 656,
657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033, or 1344; (2) Section 1341 or 1343 [mail and wire fraud], if the offense affects a
financial institution; or (3) Section 1963 [(RICO) racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations], to the extent that the
racketeering activity involves a violation of Section 1344 [bank fraud] – unless the indictment is returned or the
information is filed within 10 years after the commission of the offense,” ...

and, Under the section indicating a 10 year Statute of Limitations (page 28):

18 U.S.C. 1344 (bank fraud)
18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud affecting a financial institution)
18 U.S.C. 1343 (wire fraud affecting a financial institution)
18 U.S.C. 1963 (RICO violation involving bank fraud)

Does this settle the matter?

[TM99]

95. Thank you for taking the time to clarify that.

I accept that it is 10 years. The questions that remain for me are as follows:

1) When did the 10 year mark start? 2008 or sooner?

2) Is Holder actually going to do anything substantial? Thus far, he and this administration have not.

3) If Holder is 'building a case', will the next administration drop it in a similar way that Bush had the DoJ basically let Microsoft off the hook on Anti-Trust violations. Or will it be independent of 'politics' and allowed to proceed to meaningful indictments and punishment for those whose crimes led to the 2008 financial crisis?

You can't answer those, I know, however, they are worth asking given the severity of the issues.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. Well ...

1) When did the 10 year mark start? 2008 or sooner?

That would depend on when the specific defendant, engaged in the specific conduct.

2) Is Holder actually going to do anything substantial? Thus far, he and this administration have not.

I suppose, the answer to that question depends on what one considers "substantial." For many, (it would seem) anything less than convictions of every top bank executive employed during the "melt-down" years, along with life sentences, would be deemed insubstantial.

For me ... I would say "Yes", his securing convictions would be substantial ... after that, it's not up to Holder; it'll be up to the sentencing judge.

3) If Holder is 'building a case', will the next administration drop it in a similar way that Bush had the DoJ basically let Microsoft off the hook on Anti-Trust violations. Or will it be independent of 'politics' and allowed to proceed to meaningful indictments and punishment for those whose crimes led to the 2008 financial crisis?

I guess that will depend on whether a Democrat takes the Whitehouse in 2016; but I would suspect, any case filed in 2014, will have concluded long before 2016 (at least the trial court phase).

[TM99]

97. This is what leads one to pause.

There is still so much speculation and unknown about these 'cases' that many, including myself, do not expect substantive actions.

Though I do agree with you secured convictions of the worst perpetrators at the highest level would be substantial for me.

[okaawhatever]

40. Is that correct? I thought after the Savings & Loan disaster congress made it 10 yrs for banks. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. You are correct. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

55. Sadly, no.

The clock has run out, e.g., https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/12-3

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. No it hasn't ...

the Statute of Limitations for prosecuting these cases is 10 years.

22 “No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate – (1) Section 215, 656,
657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033, or 1344; (2) Section 1341 or 1343 [mail and wire fraud], if the offense affects a
financial institution; or (3) Section 1963 [(RICO) racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations], to the extent that the
racketeering activity involves a violation of Section 1344 [bank fraud] – unless the indictment is returned or the
information is filed within 10 years after the commission of the offense,”

[MannyGoldstein]

94. You may be right.

But I don't think it's clear.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-17/bharara-says-u-dot-s-dot-has-more-time-to-bring-insider-trading-cases

I guess we'll see.

Perhaps you can post your thinking as an OP - I think it would be very interesting to many DUers, and would hold out some hope.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Where do you get that from ...

Under 18 U.S.C.§ 3293 the limitations period for criminal charges for bank fraud as well as wire fraud and mail fraud that "affects a financial institution" is 10 years.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. AFAIK, all of the press is saying that the 5-year window expired

Last edited Fri Jan 24, 2014, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

e.g., https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/12-3

See also the Wall Street Journal, etc.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Okay ...

How about considering what the LAW says; rather than, relying on "all of the press", including the WSJ ... that just 6 short years ago the Left, widely distrusted because of it's frequent inaccurate reporting? Or, do we trust the press now? What changed?

No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate—

(1) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033, or 1344;

(2) section 1341 or 1343, if the offense affects a financial institution; or

(3) section 1963, to the extent that the racketeering activity involves a violation of section 1344;

unless the indictment is returned or the information is filed within 10 years after the commission of the offense.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3293

[MannyGoldstein]

59. What's in those sections it calls out?

Are you an attorney or otherwise familiar with that law?

That's a pretty easy thing for the press to fact check.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Did you go to the link? ...

That's a pretty easy thing to do.

Are you an attorney or otherwise familiar with that law?

Yes ... though my career path has taken me in a different direction.

That's a pretty easy thing for the press to fact check.

Why would the press start fact-checking their print, now? Remember the Left's complaint(s) with the press a few short years ago?

[davidpdx]

62. It's funny how people on DU can bemoan the press 99% of the time

then turn around and trust them. Frankly some of the people who responded to you acted like 5 year olds.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. They trust the press ...

whenever the press tells them what they already want to believe.

But I thought "liberals" were known for having they ideology formed by fact, not finding "facts" that conform to their ideology.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. It links to laws.

Laws require interpretation, which isn't always straightforward.

So your point is that *some* crimes might still be prosecutable. The press doesn't often flat-out lie, so I'm thinking that not much can be done now. Hopefully you're right and I'm wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. The press doesn't often flat-out lie? ...

Need I remind you of the Bush years?

But no ... the law is clear. The SoL on fraud involving financial institutions is 10 years. Period.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. AFAIK, they passed along lies

And were insufficiently curious about the information they got.

That's a different situation, I think, than interpreting laws. I'd think they'd call an expert and get an opinion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. And this is exactly what the press is doing in this case ...

passing along a lie, i.e., the SoL has run on prosecuting the banks. And you, after years of having the press passing along lies to you, suddenly are insufficiently curious about the information they gave you. Why is that?

I have provided you with countering factual information (including a link to the fact), and you persist. If you do not want to believe me, and were sufficiently curious, a quick google would/will provide you with about a quarter century of "interpretations" of the law.

That the SoL on Fraud involving Financial Institutions is 10 years is clear and settled law.

That's a different situation, I think, than interpreting laws. I'd think they'd call an expert and get an opinion.

No Manny ... Why would they, or you, seek an expert opinion now? It supports the anti-Holder (and by extension, the anti-President Obama) narrative that you wish to promote here.

[treestar]

79. Plus, when it comes to fraud, there usually is an extension to account for discovery of the fraud

to account for the fact that a fraudulent act by its nature is not immediately apparent.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Actually, that's not the case ...

a recent Roberts ruling kind of put the breaks on that. The case involved Headstart and a hedge fund, but I don't recall the citation.(when I get a moment, I'll get back with a link to the ruling ... )

The case, no doubt, will be used to argue against extending the discovery period; but is easily distinguished, as a matter of law, i.e., "hedge fund" versus a "financial institution."

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. BTW ...

What does "AFAIK" mean?

[MannyGoldstein]

65. As far as I know... nt

[Jackpine Radical]

78. Manny, I think 1StrongBlackMan is right.

The popular press seems to have it wrong. I too had thought it was 5 years, but found this:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf‎

Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Appendix A. Periods of Limitation for Specific Federal Crimes

-(Excerpts)-

10 years

18 U.S.C. 844 (i) (burning or bombing property used in or used in activities affecting commerce) 18 U.S.C. 1005 (fraud concerning bank entries, reports and transactions)
18 U.S.C. 1006 (fraud concerning federal credit institution entries, reports and transactions)
18 U.S.C. 1007 (fraud concerning Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transactions)
18 U.S.C. 1014 (fraud concerning loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance)
18 U.S.C. 1033 (crimes by or affecting persons engaged in the business of insurance) 18 U.S.C. 1344 (bank fraud)
18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud affecting a financial institution)
18 U.S.C. 1343 (wire fraud affecting a financial institution)

[treestar]

80. Won't be convincing to people determined to believe Holder and Obama

are working for the corporatists. Facts do not matter to them.

[MannyGoldstein]

86. Looks like it's a bit murky:

But in some instances it might be ten years: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-17/bharara-says-u-dot-s-dot-has-more-time-to-bring-insider-trading-cases

[Enthusiast]

72. +1 a shit load...........nt

[Jackpine Radical]

77. First thought to cross my mind on seeing the headline, too.

We now return you to the medical marijuana busts.

[Scuba]

2. Hey Eric, there's people commiting those crimes, not "institutions".

[phleshdef]

3. Reading is your friend.

From the OP:

"There are no individuals who are in such high-level positions that they cannot be indicted, criminally investigated," he said. "And we have brought charges against thousands of people" in the nearly five years he has been in office.

[Lasher]

11. Of course they can be indicted.

Michelle can bring me a cheeseburger today. But she won't.

[phleshdef]

12. I was just responding to what the other poster said.

That poster acted as if Holder didn't recognize that individuals were behind the Wall Street games that brought down the economy and the truth is the opposite of that.

[Aerows]

36. Recognizing that individuals were behind the Wall Street games

and actually DOING something about it before the statue of limitations ran out are two totally different things.

It's easy to talk tough now. I guess none of the responsible parties on Wall Street (and most of us know who they are) didn't smoke enough medical marijuana to attract his attention - they just laundered the money illegal dealers made.

"I would have punched him right in the face had he not moved to another state five years later!"

[phleshdef]

38. Investigations into the kind of large scale financial fraud are a lot more complicated...

...and take a lot longer than say, busting a medical marijuana dispensary because its violating a fairly simple to navigate law.

Don't take me wrong. I'm pro-marijuana legalization all the way. But the situation deserves context.

There have been ongoing investigations into the financial institutions since its earlier years. But those things take time. I know we live in this instant gratification society with a short attention span, but Christ, lets be reasonable.

Holder said more prosecutions are coming. And I think theres a good case for taking a lot of time to determine who broke laws vs who took advantage of legal loopholes, in which case we are talking about something prosecutable. Our entire financial system is a massive web of shit.

[Aerows]

39. Blah blah blah

Delay, dither and pretend to do something until the ringleaders can't be jailed. THEN start talking tough and maybe net a few small fish.

That's not going to salvage Holder's reputation, and you, me and everyone even remotely informed about the subject know it. If it makes you feel better, please, by all means continue defending Holder. I'm sure it will enhance your credibility with the BOG, but other folks? Not so much, my friend.

[phleshdef]

58. Sounds like the opinion of someone that doesn't understand the situation.

So blah yourself blue in the face. I'm still not wrong.

[treestar]

81. And does not wish to.

Obama bad, Holder bad, it's carried so far that one has to wonder.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Yes ...

It's easy to talk tough.

It is ... especially when typing on the internets with no consequences, personally or professional, for your actions, should you get it wrong.

[Aerows]

46. Yeah, it's really rough

when you are afraid you might miss out on a campaign donation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Holder has been seeking campaign donations? Do tell? n/t

[Burf-_-]

5. and yet no one is going to jail.

That'll teach'em AG holder! When will the DOJ get some balls and start jailing these assholes. Seriously they need to get ICELANDIC about this whole thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Different set of laws ...

Different legal processes ... different burdens of proof; but other than that ... exactly the same.

[orpupilofnature57]

76. +1000 !!!!

[yourout]

4. Then they fork over some money and recieve a get out of jail free card.

Jail time is the only thing that will make them change.

[hrmjustin]

6. Indict! Indict! Indict!

[FrodosPet]

7. Who needs evidence, testimony, witnesses, or specific charges?

Just throw every bankster who has worked in the industry since 2001 above the level of branch manager in jail for 10 years. No trial needed.

Finding out what laws specifically they broke, and getting a jury of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty to understand the weeks or months of testimony for each case is too much work. It will be massively expensive to hire all the expert witnesses just so we can maintain the "Innocent until proven guilty" illusion. Just throw them all in the clink, nationalize all the banks into one single national bank owned and controlled by the treasury department and staffed by the U.S. Postal Service, and all will be right with the world.

[raindaddy]

9. How long has it been.....

Since the "too big to fail" banks brought down the middle class economy? Six years? The banks are even more too big to fail than they were back then and they're just getting around to investigating? Really?

Too bad the banksters aren't whistle blowers...

[FrodosPet]

13. Did the investigations just start?

I've always heard that financial sector crimes are notoriously difficult to investigate, much less successfully prosecute.

For one, the laws were often in their favor. Even if something looks scuzzy, that does not mean you can always point to a specific criminal infraction. And that is rather important when charging someone.

Lots of paper has been shredded and files deleted. Witnesses have faulty memories. And while certain institutions may have had a culture of shortcuts and fraud, it is not so easy to be able to lay down specific charges on specific people.

So it comes down to what is more important: punishing bankers, no matter what the cost or difficulty, or protecting the rights of the accused, no matter who they are.

As much as many of them deserve to be in a prison cell, we gotta remember these won't be one day in and out trials. They will last months, with at least a few acquittals. Many of them will cost millions of dollars to prosecute.

Maybe I am too easy on the Justice Department, but I can see why it has taken so long.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. It's more than that ...

So it comes down to what is more important: punishing bankers, no matter what the cost or difficulty, or protecting the rights of the accused, no matter who they are.

If the cases are to reach the top executives (as to satisfy the hang the banker crowd), the DoJ has to be able to prove that they were involved in, know of, or actively shielded themselves from knowing of, the crimes. That is a tall order.

But more, bringing a case and losing, will completely remove any motivation for the Banks to settle any cases.

[raindaddy]

63. More talk than anything else....

Looking at the overall relationship between the Obama administration and the big banks your assumption about the DOJ moving at a snails pace because they're trying to build an airtight case is hard to believe.
The Citigroup bailout, Larry Summers, Tim Geitthner,etc.. They never pushed for "too big to fail" legislation when they had the chance. They just don't have a history of making the banksters accountable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Okay. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. +1 n/t

[progressoid]

8. Watch out bankers, you're going to get your wrist slapped!

[Aerows]

37. The tongue-lashing will be epic. n/t

[L0oniX]

10. "we have other things that are in the pipeline" like busting pot dispensary's.

[jwirr]

14. What has suddenly gotten into Holder? Has he been quietly investigating all these cases for all this

time?

[Aerows]

31. Statute of Limitations ran out

Now he can talk tough without having to actually prosecute anyone.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. No it hasn't. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. You can count on it ...

what's more ... just like with making the FBI's "10 Most Wanted List", where all of law enforcement knows, the FBI has a good idea where the listee is ... The DoJ already knows exactly which cases will be brought and when. Public officials don't make such announcements without already knowing what they are about to do.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. He should have told Lanny Breuer that on day one

I'll take Holder at his word when I see Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd doing the perp walk.

[Phlem]

20. Holder your a fucking joke.

jeeebus.

-p

[Javaman]

21. If this wasn't so freaking hilarious...

it would be down right depressing.

wait, it is.

I will now commence with the holding of the breath.

[russspeakeasy]

24. Bullshit ! You, sir, are a toady to the financial institutions.

[JDPriestly]

25. I'm waiting with bated breath.

From the US Attorneys' 2010 statistics


U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
United States Attorneys’
Annual Statistical Report
Fiscal Year 2010

http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2010/10statrpt.pdf

Drug cases -- 45% of those convicted are sentenced to more than 5 years in prison.

White collar cases -- 14% of convicted are sentenced to more than 5 years in prison (may include minor offenses)

http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2010/10statrpt.pdf

If I remember correctly, AG Holder said he would try to reduce the sentencing for some drug cases.

[lark]

26. I call TOTAL BS!

How can he even say that with a straight face given all the sweetheart deals the government has been handling out to criminal bankers. HSB, caught red-handed in drug trafficing and no one went to jail, no one was even indicted or brought up on charges. Holder is such a tool and liar.

[Unknown Beatle]

27. Wall Street

is obviously greasing Holders' palms.

[Brigid]

28. Riddle me this, Mr. Holder:

Why has Iceland sent its banksters to jail and we haven't?

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Different laws ...

Different legal processes ... Different burdens of proof.

[Kelvin Mace]

29. I will believe it when I see Jamie Dimon handcuffed

Anything else is just talk.

[Aerows]

34. I'm guessing he doesn't have any boxes in his garage

and doesn't need medical marijuana so he's not that big of a priority.

[DeSwiss]

30. I see he's changed his mind.

- Or had it changed for him.

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large." Eric Holder, The Hill

[Aerows]

33. It's easy to talk tough now

NOW he doesn't have to do anything, just talk tough and act like he actually did anything. It's easy to take on the bullies that run the school after they have graduated and gone off to college. "I would've kicked their asses, but I was figuring out how to do it most effectively!"

[DeSwiss]

35. I know.

They're pathetic. Really, really pathetic. They had a chance to stand for something real.

- Instead were easily bought-off with fake prestige and accolades, and all the worthless paper they can carry away.....

[Aerows]

32. Oh look

The statute of limitations ran out to get the ringleaders. NOW is the time to talk tough and "investigate", "prosecute" and "condemn".

Dude, you had 5 years. If you think this "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" act is going to save your reputation now, you are living somewhere over the rainbow.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Dude, ...

he has 10 years.

[kelliekat44]

61. Actually has done more on white collar crime than the last three GOP AGs combined. But then

it's Eric...

[blkmusclmachine]

54. Selective memory = selective indictment.

[magical thyme]

75. Talk is cheap, Mr. Holder. I'll believe it when I see it.

When I see Blankstein and Dimon and the rest of the banksters forced to pay back trillions and wearing orange and black, then I'll believe it.

It really is that simple.

[treestar]

82. Why some cannot admit he is doing what they wanted

is quite hilarious.

[jsr]

85. Any Day Now

What a joke.