re: Funny business in the Delta: Farmer, bankers accused of racketeering

So I am confused, if he was the owner and managed all the farms why couldn't he put them in his name? What benefit was it to have them in others names?

That guy is in for a crappy rest of his life.

I had a friend whose dad owned his own insurance company. High risk insurance like trucking companies and such. Got addicted to pain killers after hip surgery, developed a gambling problem. He got in the hole big and started using premium payments to try and dig himself out.

He got busted, lost everything, but avoided jail time due to health. He has nothing, drives an 20 yr old Jeep Grand Cherokee and lives in a run down duplex.

A few stupid decisions took him from having anything he wanted to having nothing but a disability check due to the bad hip he had put in.

The FDIC and Banking Commission are about to go in dry on these banks. Problem is these board members are sweating bullets because they will be personally liable for all fraud that was committed by the bank and there seems to be a ton of it going on. I'm not gonna look up the financials of each of the banks, but I don't believe they would have enough capital to simply write a memo on overdraft balances of this amount. Looks to me there were some bank auditors on the take here also.

So whats the benefit of having the farms in different names?

on an inflation basis, the FBI is way off the mark.

Were they welfare farmers?

Gotcha, with a couple close family members or close friends it seems like you could easily take advantage of that program.

Theoretically though say I was a large landowner and I rented out my property to four different guys to farm. However I was the one actually farming and they had minimal roles. They each get the extra subsidies for farming a smaller size, I give them a cut and take the rest and they play along. Is that pretty much what happened here except that the guys didn't know they were being used and they weren't getting a cut?

(no message)