Big Banks, get big fines for rigging financial markets.

[GostHacked]

NO perp walks, no charges, not ONE single person going to jail over this ......

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/6-big-u-s-u-k-banks-to-pay-5-6b-in-fines-in-foreign-currency-probe-1.3080428

The regulators determined that traders at five of the banks had illegal agreements with other traders to manipulate benchmark currency prices.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said "almost every day" for five years from 2007, currency traders used a private electronic chat room to manipulate exchange rates.

Their actions harmed "countless consumers, investors and institutions around the world," she said.

Lynch said the fines were high to "deter competitors in the future from chasing profits without regard to fairness, to the law, or to the public welfare."

By agreeing not to buy or sell at certain times, the traders protected each other's trading positions by withholding supply of or demand for currency, and suppressing competition in the FX market, the department of justice said.

Traders at Bank of America, which received a lower fine, discussed the possibility of entering into similar agreements to manipulate prices.

The banks were also accused of sharing confidential information about clients.

This ties directly into the LIBOR scandal in the UK a couple years back. Guess what, these banks are STILL doing this practice. And they will continue to do it because of the light fines without charges against anyone. Even when the banks plead guilty it just results in fines.

Four of the banks pleaded guilty to conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros. They are:

​J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Barclays PLC.
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.
Citigroup Inc.

They will pay fines of $2.5 billion in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice. An additional $1.8 billion in fines has been levied by the U.S. Federal Reserve against six major banks.

The reason I say this will continue, is that this is not the first (nor will it be the last time) that these banks will manipulate the markets. I wonder what that really means for a nations currency and trading abilities. Seems like it's all smoke and mirrors.

[Je suis Omar]

Is there a racketeering law whereby proceeds of crime are taken away? Why are gangsters, drug dealers, motorcycle gangs being discriminated against?

[GostHacked]

Is there a racketeering law whereby proceeds of crime are taken away? Why are gangsters, drug dealers, motorcycle gangs being discriminated against?

They are viewed as competition.

[Je suis Omar]

They will pay fines of $2.5 billion in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice. An additional $1.8 billion in fines has been levied by the U.S. Federal Reserve against six major banks.

-----------------

For their coffee and beer petty cash.

[Bonam]

Not sure why smalltimers like Bernie Madoff get absurdly long jail sentences while these guys, manipulating the currency markets which result in losses for people on a scale thousands or millions of times larger, get nothing.

[Shady]

You'd think they'd have the identities of the individuals that met in the chat rooms. Those individuals should be prosecuted. Never mind fining the banks themselves.

[Argus]

You'd think they'd have the identities of the individuals that met in the chat rooms. Those individuals should be prosecuted. Never mind fining the banks themselves.

What I'd like to know is exactly how much profits the banks made so I can compare it to these fines.

Just a few things gleaned from the wikopedia entry.

Early estimates are that the rate manipulation scandal cost US states, counties, and local governments at least $6 billion in fraudulent interest payments, above $4 billion that state and local governments have already had to spend to unwind their positions exposed to rate manipulation

Federal Housing Finance Agency Inspector General and auditor Steve A. Linick said in a 3 November memo that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have lost more than $3 billion because of the manipulation.

So I think if you have estimates of thirteen billion in losses just for the US governmental agencies and these two mortgage lenders, then world wide the losses wold have been massively larger, which means the banks involved probably made tens of billions. This fine is just the cost of doing business, and is unlikely to stop further such action. Hell, if I was running a major bank and knew I could make $10 billion from doing something fraudulent, and then face a $2 billion fine if caught i'd be crazy not to do it.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Argus

[Shady]

What I'd like to know is exactly how much profits the banks made so I can compare it to these fines.

Just a few things gleaned from the wikopedia entry.

Early estimates are that the rate manipulation scandal cost US states, counties, and local governments at least $6 billion in fraudulent interest payments, above $4 billion that state and local governments have already had to spend to unwind their positions exposed to rate manipulation

Federal Housing Finance Agency Inspector General and auditor Steve A. Linick said in a 3 November memo that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may have lost more than $3 billion because of the manipulation.

So I think if you have estimates of thirteen billion in losses just for the US governmental agencies and these two mortgage lenders, then world wide the losses wold have been massively larger, which means the banks involved probably made tens of billions. This fine is just the cost of doing business, and is unlikely to stop further such action. Hell, if I was running a major bank and knew I could make $10 billion from doing something fraudulent, and then face a $2 billion fine if caught i'd be crazy not to do it.

I agree. That's why I'd concentrate on prosecuting the individuals responsible and sending them to jail. If that precedent was set, you'd see a lot less of an incentive to risk this kind of fraud.

[Je suis Omar]

I agree. That's why I'd concentrate on prosecuting the individuals responsible and sending them to jail. If that precedent was set, you'd see a lot less of an incentive to risk this kind of fraud.

You get your panties in a bunch about this little scandal but you rejoice over sixty years of USA terrorism against Cuba that killed many and cost Cuba over one trillion US dollars.

Why would an individual want to so loudly proclaim his support for terrorism and terrorists?

Notice how the immediate concern is about how much this has cost the USA.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would an individual want to so loudly proclaim his support for terrorism and terrorists?

Same reasons that other supporters of terrorism and terrorists do. That was easy....

[Michael Hardner]

NO perp walks, no charges, not ONE single person going to jail over this ......

I don't understand that at all. From what I understand it was many counts of theft, huge sums involved.

The article didn't list names, or even the number of people involved. It sounds like they'll be able to work elsewhere. This in the same world where there are stories of people going to jail for 55 years for selling marijuana.

[GostHacked]

I agree. That's why I'd concentrate on prosecuting the individuals responsible and sending them to jail. If that precedent was set, you'd see a lot less of an incentive to risk this kind of fraud.

You need to drag CEO's and such into the court room for allowing the practices in the first place. But then again, you have government allowing and rewarding those practices with the bailouts starting in 2008.

So why don't we see the perp walks? What is preventing that?

Edited May 21, 2015 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-21/public-confused-why-worlds-biggest-banks-admitting-criminal-fraud-leads-public-yawns

Yes, why are we getting big yawns from the public?

Since then things have gone from bad to worse for believers in fair and efficient markets, with not only countless more banks now admitting they rigged Libor and FX, not to mention gold (yes gold too was manipulated as impossible as it sounds) and even the CFTC finally figured out just how spoofers manipulate the price of both stock indices and gold, but that biggest master manipulator of all, the world's central banks, unleashed a record liquidity blitz into world markets with 2015 set to be the year in which CBs are set to monetize all net issuance.

It all culminated with yesterday's settlement in which five of the world's biggest banks, including JPM, Citi and Barclays, agreed to plead guilty in a currency-rigging probe.

And, to Bloomberg's dismay, the public yawned.

This should be really big news! Why isn't it?

So, currencies and gold were manipulated. What else have they managed to manipulate? The markets are being driven by manipulation on the inside. So that makes me wonder about the so called huge gains in stock market exchanges. Meaning that could all be a facade. If the currency is manipulated, then the price of things traded in that currency are also manipulated. A cascading effect through the entire financial 'industry'.

Record fines, but no one is being charged.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32817114

"They engaged in a brazen 'heads I win, tails you lose' scheme to rip off their clients," said New York State superintendent of financial services Benjamin Lawsky.

The fines break a number of records. The criminal fines of more than $2.5bn are the largest set of anti-trust fines obtained by the Department of Justice.

The £284m fine imposed on Barclays by Britain's Financial Conduct Authority was a record by the regulator.

Meanwhile, the $925m fine imposed on Citigroup by the Department of Justice was the biggest penalty for breaking the Sherman Act, which covers competition law.

The guilty pleas from the banks are seen as highly significant as banks have settled previous investigations without an admission of guilt.

The Attorney General warned that further wrongdoing would be taken extremely seriously: "The Department of Justice will not hesitate to file criminal charges for financial institutions that reoffend.

"Banks that cannot or will not clean up their act need to understand - it will be enforced."

We know the last line is total bullsh*t. Remember this stuff when these asshats ask governments for another bailout.

[eyeball]

This should be really big news! Why isn't it?

It doesn't bleed or explode. You got nuthin'.

[Shady]

You need to drag CEO's and such into the court room for allowing the practices in the first place. But then again, you have government allowing and rewarding those practices with the bailouts starting in 2008.

So why don't we see the perp walks? What is preventing that?

Those who are responsible need to go to court, some might be CEOs, some might not be. 2008 is something much different.

[GostHacked]

Those who are responsible need to go to court, some might be CEOs, some might not be. 2008 is something much different.

This all stems from 2008, and actually before then. So what is preventing these dolts from being prosecuted?

[Shady]

This all stems from 2008, and actually before then. So what is preventing these dolts from being prosecuted?

I'm not sure this has anything to do with 2008. This is an action all to itself and has as much to do with 2008 as the savings and loan scandal from the late 80s.

I don't know why the individuals in this case can't be prosecuted within the countries they reside.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Shady

[kimmy]

You'd think they'd have the identities of the individuals that met in the chat rooms. Those individuals should be prosecuted. Never mind fining the banks themselves.

Apparently they are still considering charges against individuals. They absolutely should.

Anybody whose name they have, they should pursue them with the same vigor they had when they went after Aaron Swartz. Swartz was the kid whose crime was downloading research papers from the JSTOR archive-- publicly funded research that was eventually released into the public domain for free anyway. Even after JSTOR asked the Massachusetts prosecuters not to pursue Swartz any further, the prosecutors brought about 10 years worth of charges against Swartz, with the promise that they go easy if he plead guilty. When he didn't plead guilty, they went back to the books and found an extra 20 years worth of jail time to add to the charges. "Feel like pleading guilty yet?" They eventually found over 50 years worth of charges to bring against Swartz, prior to his suicide. Personally I thought that was a ludicrous abuse of prosecutorial power, but apparently it's legal for them to do that. So, why not go after these bankers with the same wrath? They clearly wanted to make an example of Swartz, but clearly these bankers need to be made an example of as well.

They should take every name they have, hit the books and find every possible charge they can bring against these guys, and tell them: "you're going to prison for centuries. And we're going to use civil forfeiture laws to make sure that your spouse and your children live in poverty. And the only thing that will persuade us to go easy on you is if you give us names of other people we can go after."

And if they provide valuable information, that's awesome. If not, then put them away for centuries and use civil forfeiture laws to take everything they own. Make an example of them. Make the next guy think twice.

The other thing I have been thinking is, why not really make an example of one of these banks? For example, one of the terms of this settlement is that the banks got waivers allowing them to continue to do things like operate mutual funds in spite of the criminal convictions.

Next time, pick one bank out of the group, and give it a "time out". One offender gets to sit on the sidelines for a while and watch its competitors scoop up its business. Kind of like an NHL referee picking one guy out of a scrum to sit in the box.

Those who are responsible need to go to court, some might be CEOs, some might not be. 2008 is something much different.

Not that different. The mass "robosigning" of mortgage applications they fully knew should never have been approved, the use of these worthless mortgages as filler hidden in Mortgage-Backed Securities, strong-arming ratings agencies like S&P into giving these BS MBSs A+ ratings, the cooperation of agencies like S&P in the scam... there were a hell of a lot of people that should have been prosecuted. I gather they've finally gotten around to laying charges against Angelo "Fund 'em" Mozilo, all these years later.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....Not that different. The mass "robosigning" of mortgage applications they fully knew should never have been approved,

But it was approved and perfectly legal. Sorry...no charges and convictions.

[kimmy]

But it was approved and perfectly legal. Sorry...no charges and convictions.

No convictions, but lots of fines and settlements.

-k

[GostHacked]

Not that different. The mass "robosigning" of mortgage applications they fully knew should never have been approved, the use of these worthless mortgages as filler hidden in Mortgage-Backed Securities, strong-arming ratings agencies like S&P into giving these BS MBSs A+ ratings, the cooperation of agencies like S&P in the scam... there were a hell of a lot of people that should have been prosecuted. I gather they've finally gotten around to laying charges against Angelo "Fund 'em" Mozilo, all these years later.

-k

Quite true. We only saw Madoff prosecuted out of the 2008 batch. But then again, we could look back farther and get more examples of this. What we have is a culture within the banking system that allows these practices to continue. Since Swartz was convicted, then why do we not see any of these people convicted? The difference being Swartz did not work for a bank??

[kimmy]

Swartz was never convicted. All charges were dropped after his suicide.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

No convictions, but lots of fines and settlements.

Fines and settlements are just the cost of doing business.

[Shady]

Apparently they are still considering charges against individuals. They absolutely should.

Anybody whose name they have, they should pursue them with the same vigor they had when they went after Aaron Swartz. Swartz was the kid whose crime was downloading research papers from the JSTOR archive-- publicly funded research that was eventually released into the public domain for free anyway. Even after JSTOR asked the Massachusetts prosecuters not to pursue Swartz any further, the prosecutors brought about 10 years worth of charges against Swartz, with the promise that they go easy if he plead guilty. When he didn't plead guilty, they went back to the books and found an extra 20 years worth of jail time to add to the charges. "Feel like pleading guilty yet?" They eventually found over 50 years worth of charges to bring against Swartz, prior to his suicide. Personally I thought that was a ludicrous abuse of prosecutorial power, but apparently it's legal for them to do that. So, why not go after these bankers with the same wrath? They clearly wanted to make an example of Swartz, but clearly these bankers need to be made an example of as well.

They should take every name they have, hit the books and find every possible charge they can bring against these guys, and tell them: "you're going to prison for centuries. And we're going to use civil forfeiture laws to make sure that your spouse and your children live in poverty. And the only thing that will persuade us to go easy on you is if you give us names of other people we can go after."

And if they provide valuable information, that's awesome. If not, then put them away for centuries and use civil forfeiture laws to take everything they own. Make an example of them. Make the next guy think twice.

The other thing I have been thinking is, why not really make an example of one of these banks? For example, one of the terms of this settlement is that the banks got waivers allowing them to continue to do things like operate mutual funds in spite of the criminal convictions.

Next time, pick one bank out of the group, and give it a "time out". One offender gets to sit on the sidelines for a while and watch its competitors scoop up its business. Kind of like an NHL referee picking one guy out of a scrum to sit in the box.

Not that different. The mass "robosigning" of mortgage applications they fully knew should never have been approved, the use of these worthless mortgages as filler hidden in Mortgage-Backed Securities, strong-arming ratings agencies like S&P into giving these BS MBSs A+ ratings, the cooperation of agencies like S&P in the scam... there were a hell of a lot of people that should have been prosecuted. I gather they've finally gotten around to laying charges against Angelo "Fund 'em" Mozilo, all these years later.

-k

Yes it is different than 2008. Government was complicit in the distortion of the housing market and the lowering of lending standards all in the name of so-called helping people that wouldn't otherwise qualify for mortgages. If youre gonna prosecute banks, prosecute the legislators in government as well that helped foster the problem in the first place. Prosecute Freddie Mac and Fannie mae as well. Prosecute former president Clinton too. Don't pick and choose which accomplices get punished.

[Shady]

Quite true. We only saw Madoff prosecuted out of the 2008 batch. But then again, we could look back farther and get more examples of this. What we have is a culture within the banking system that allows these practices to continue. Since Swartz was convicted, then why do we not see any of these people convicted? The difference being Swartz did not work for a bank??

Nonsense. Madoff's scams had nothing to do with anything other than himself.