The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
She's unlikely to look terribly weak against him anyway. Both she and Bernie have seen their numbers rise against Trump as the GOP primary has become more and more unhinged. As has Obama, for that matter.
Regardless of who gets elected (even Bernie), I highly doubt you're ever going to see prosecutions for any sort of fraud among CEOs and CFOs of major banks for anything that happened during the mid-2000s. Mostly because I think you'd find the CEOs and CFOs weren't generally the ones committing the fraud.
In my experience -- mostly antitrust work but some big financial fraud work, too -- the perpetrators don't tend to be the officers. They tend to be the mid- to upper-mid-level guys.
Not universally true, but generally.
I do think you'll see those people go to jail more often simply due to the change in attitude at DOJ, which has been shifting toward a focus on jail time for white-collar crime. They've changed from viewing it as a civil-type issue requiring fines to viewing it as a property crime requiring jail sentences.
I think she's proposed some good ideas for additional regulation to build on Dodd-Frank. They'll never pass (at least in whole), in all likelihood, because we won't have enough votes. But good ideas anyway. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
Yeah, the high-level guys create the environment and look the other way, almost impossible to catch them on it.
Of course, the high-level guys undoubtedly became high-level guys by doing the same crap and not getting caught. They were just smart enough to not put it in emails and phone recordings. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
Not sure why ARG listed CFOs, since CFOs don't really do anything but accounting, SEC stuff (in concert with general counsels) and collecting enormous paychecks. Outside of cases like Enron and insider trading stuff (like the Apple backdating thing years back), they're not going to be heavily involved in the kind of day-to-day fraud we have in mind here.
I'm sure there are examples where they are, depending on the company (finance would be the obvious potential exception). They might well have a more active role in strategy in some places, but not generally. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
And I think you significantly minimize the scope for prosecution that has been ignored under 'regulatory forbearance'. A high profile investigation of the NY Fed with a covert agent or another insider who came forward, were it made clear that whistle-blowers will NOW be protected, not outed, with the skills of Carmine Segarra, could be quite devastating. Hell, a Democratic Senate could convene a special committee to investigate the New York Fed and have public hearings with Carmine as the star witness. It would be electrifying: regulatory capture illustrated - with a beautiful, passionate and articulate figure who was there. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Enron was hardly a trivial example. And even a failed prosecution of a high ranked official, especially after having 'turned' an obviously guilty lower ranked official, would go a long way towards changing the climate of 'fraud is the business model'.
I didn't say it was trivial. I just said it wasn't the norm for what I think you have in mind. And Enron's CFO did go to jail. As did executives in the bid-rigging case involving municipal bonds (remember the Jefferson County bankruptcy?).
My point is that you can turn all the low-ranked officials you want. The CEO-/CFO-types generally aren't the ones involved.
And I think you significantly minimize the scope for prosecution that has been ignored under 'regulatory forbearance'. A high profile investigation of the NY Fed with a covert agent or another insider who came forward, were it made clear that whistle-blowers will NOW be protected, not outed, with the skills of Carmine Segarra, could be quite devastating. Hell, a Democratic Senate could convene a special committee to investigate the New York Fed and have public hearings with Carmine as the star witness. It would be electrifying: regulatory capture illustrated - with a beautiful, passionate and articulate figure who was there.
This sounds great. I'm all for it. And I'm sure all six CSPAN viewers would find it riveting. But this goes to the "What's really scary is what's legal" bit. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
Millions of Progressives would find Carmine Segarra's testimony riveting. It would be like John Dean's testimony before the Ervin Committee all over, but with the New York Fed and the whole way our monetary system is run and (not) regulated as the subject being investigated. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 23 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2729 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2523 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1215 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments