- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Real Housewives NJ couple Sentenced to Prison for Fraud
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:43 pm to The Third Leg
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:43 pm to The Third Leg
They lied repeatedly to the IRS, to the bankruptcy court and Investigators. And they conspired to hide assets on numerous occasions. They were lying yesterday in their leniency pleas in front of the judge
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
She is a narcissistic count and he is a meathead
frick them both
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
She is a narcissistic count and he is a meathead
frick them both
2
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:52 pm to supatigah
:kige:
Posted on 10/3/14 at 12:55 pm to supatigah
I don't disagree with you, nor do I give a frick about these pieces of shite, but all that same incendiary commentary can be laid at the feet of others who are deemed systemically important.
These are two sets of laws at work here - which is grossly unjust - and people should care when US Attorneys publicly boast and label this "serious financial crime worthy of prison" not long after issuing statements about how they'd love to prosecute those who we have been caught laundering drug cartel money, but they just cannot do it because of their economic importance.
These are two sets of laws at work here - which is grossly unjust - and people should care when US Attorneys publicly boast and label this "serious financial crime worthy of prison" not long after issuing statements about how they'd love to prosecute those who we have been caught laundering drug cartel money, but they just cannot do it because of their economic importance.
This post was edited on 10/3/14 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:34 pm to Tiger Ryno
I have a buddy that is from an upper class area of Western New Jersey. Been calling him Jersey Shore since before Jersey Shore was a show. He said that's all everyone is talking about up there
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:37 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
I'm a liberal
You don't say...
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:39 pm to Chucktown_Badger
So do conservatives rally around the idea of separate laws for separate groups?
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:40 pm to Tiger Ryno
My wife watches that garbage. It's professional wrestling for women.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:46 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
So do conservatives rally around the idea of separate laws for separate groups?
You're looking at the two situations as apples to apples, when I'm not sure that's accurate.
I don't know enough about every instance you're alluding to to have a strong opinion about the enforcement, or lack thereof, of any particular laws.
What companies are known to launder drug money?
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:50 pm to Chucktown_Badger
Serious financial crime is serious financial crime, no?
HSBC paid a two billion dollar fine for drug money laundering, they also violated US economic sanctions; here is a Bloomberg article from last summer.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html
HSBC paid a two billion dollar fine for drug money laundering, they also violated US economic sanctions; here is a Bloomberg article from last summer.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html
This post was edited on 10/3/14 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 10/3/14 at 1:59 pm to The Third Leg
The judges perspective is noted in the article.
"“Indeed, taking into account the fact that a company cannot be imprisoned, it appears to me that much of what might have been accomplished by a criminal conviction has been agreed to in the DPA,” Gleeson wrote."
So, given the magnitude of the dollar amount, and the fact that many people touched it and "assisted" in allowing that to happen, is your perspective that all of them (hundreds or thousands) should be imprisoned? Showing intentional criminal intent would be difficult for all but a select few, and many who allowed it to happen probably didn't even know they had contributed to it.
Not saying that excuses anyone, just saying that it's not hard to see that these are two very different situations: a company involving many many people at many levels who may or may not have known what they were doing vs. one couple who damn well knew what they were doing.
"“Indeed, taking into account the fact that a company cannot be imprisoned, it appears to me that much of what might have been accomplished by a criminal conviction has been agreed to in the DPA,” Gleeson wrote."
So, given the magnitude of the dollar amount, and the fact that many people touched it and "assisted" in allowing that to happen, is your perspective that all of them (hundreds or thousands) should be imprisoned? Showing intentional criminal intent would be difficult for all but a select few, and many who allowed it to happen probably didn't even know they had contributed to it.
Not saying that excuses anyone, just saying that it's not hard to see that these are two very different situations: a company involving many many people at many levels who may or may not have known what they were doing vs. one couple who damn well knew what they were doing.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 2:01 pm to Chucktown_Badger
It's actually kind of simple. There were people in positions of power here that established and originated the business for the bank. The DOJ knows who these people were, it is not that difficult to figure it out.
This is how corporate fraud is rooted out. I've seen it firsthand; they go up and down the ladder looking for control points where ignorance cannot be a viable excuse.
Eta: we used to prosecute people and jail them for this behavior when it was discovered, now the company pays higher fines to fund the prosecution of dipshits like those in the OP.
This is how corporate fraud is rooted out. I've seen it firsthand; they go up and down the ladder looking for control points where ignorance cannot be a viable excuse.
Eta: we used to prosecute people and jail them for this behavior when it was discovered, now the company pays higher fines to fund the prosecution of dipshits like those in the OP.
This post was edited on 10/3/14 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 10/3/14 at 2:24 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
We let firms with powerful litigators simply pay fines after laundering drug cartel money
The general public doesn't seem to understand how money laundering works.
Just because a cartel funneled money through a particular bank, doesn't mean the BANK laundered money. It means that their system of internal controls meant to identify suspicious activity was piss-poor.
Think of it like this: The US Gov't has shitty border patrol. They're not at fault for the illegal immigrants breaking the law, but they also haven't done enough to stop it.
The Bank Secrecy Act requires bank to have robust policies, procedures, systems, etc that are sufficient to identify suspicious activity. They didn't. As is the case with most banking violations of law, fines were assessed and banking activities restricted.
As for prosecuting the bankers that contributed to the crisis...that sounds great, Elizabeth Warren. But who? You realize banks are huge, right? Citibank has something like 250K employees. So which employees do you prosecute? Underwriter? Loan officer? Chief Credit Officer? The Board of Directors?
It's one thing to hold them financially liable as a firm. It's another thing to try to find the smoking gun that would result in a conviction. You have to remember, there are 249,999 other employees the defendent would blame it on. "I was just following bank policy." "I was just relying on senior manager expertise." "The Board didn't give me enough guidance."
Sounds easy, but there's a reason there haven't been more prosecutions. We don't have the resources to spend years sorting through hundreds of thousands of millions of documents to find the smoking gun.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 2:29 pm to Tiger Ryno
(no message)
This post was edited on 12/20/18 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 10/3/14 at 2:34 pm to gingerkittie
She's an OT -10.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 2:43 pm to ocelot4ark
That's a cop out. HSBC and the United States government were well acquainted long ago. HSBC repeatedly defied the government and knew what the frick was going on. The firsthand accounts of their compliance programs and anti-laundering measures were cartoonish. They were systemically structured to allow these monies to pass through their system, their policies dictated that. The government had them directly linked to business in banned zones all over the Middle East.
quote:
Former bailout inspector and federal prosecutor Neil Barofsky, who has helped secure numerous foreign money-laundering indictments, points out that the people HSBC was doing business with, like Colombia's Norte del Valle and Mexico's Sinaloa cartels, were "the worst trafficking organizations imaginable" – groups that don't just commit murder on a mass scale but are known for beheadings, torture videos ("the new thing now," he says) and other atrocities, none of which happens without money launderers. It's for this reason, Barofsky says, that drug prosecutors are not shy about dropping heavy prison sentences on launderers. "Frankly, our view of money-laundering was that it was on par with, and as significant as, the traffickers themselves," he says.
Barofsky was involved in the first extradition of a Colombian national (Pablo Trujillo, a member of the same cartel that HSBC moved money for) on moneylaundering charges. "That guy got 10 years," says Barofsky. "HSBC was doing the same thing, only on a much larger scale than my schmuck was doing."
Posted on 10/3/14 at 2:46 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
HSBC repeatedly defied the government and knew what the frick was going on.
And? None of that means they laundered money. The fact that they ignored previous regulatory findings is exactly why the fine was so large (largest in history for BSA related activities).
quote:
The firsthand accounts of their compliance programs and anti-laundering measures were cartoonish. They were systemically structured to allow these monies to pass through their system, their policies dictated that.
Thanks for agreeing with my previous point that they hadn't setup an effective BSA program. Please, explain banking to me more.
quote:
The government had them directly linked to business in banned zones all over the Middle East.
And they paid fines for that.
quote:
"HSBC was doing the same thing, only on a much larger scale than my schmuck was doing."
That guy doesn't know what the frick he's talking about. The banks were doing no such thing. Did the banks place the money into the institution? Was it their name on the deposit slip? No? It was the cartels? Oh, well in that case shut the frick up because you don't understand the actual definition of money laundering.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:00 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:
And they paid fines for that
Which is the entire point of the discussion: why are the idiots in he OP doing jail time? Why not just fine them and move on with it?
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:12 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
why are the idiots in he OP doing jail time? Why not just fine them and move on with it?
You're being obtuse.
They prosecute people for criminal acts when they have a smoking gun, or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Do you have any idea who they could reasonably suspect at Citibank, Chase, BofA, Wells, etc?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:14 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:
As part of an agreement deferring its prosecution, HSBC admitted that executives for years ignored warning signs that drug cartels in Mexico were using its branches to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through the U.S. The bank also acknowledged that its international staff had stripped identifying information on transactions through the U.S. from countries including Iran and Sudan in order to evade sanctions.
quote:
The deal "makes a mockery of the criminal justice system," said Jimmy Gurulé, a law professor at Notre Dame and former assistant attorney general
https://money.cnn.com/2012/12/12/news/companies/hsbc-money-laundering/
This post was edited on 10/3/14 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 10/3/14 at 3:28 pm to The Third Leg
And, once again, ignoring money laundering is not the same as money laundering.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News