Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us
  • Peter Scannell

    How is it that the above 2001 emails were never examined in the SEC OIG comprehensive 400+ page investigation of Madoff?

    Furthermore, how is it that the WSJ, NYT, never published the damming emails between Cutler and Richardson?

    How is it that I am the only one that has ever posted the emails?

    Why has JP Morgan refused to turn over to federal authorities Madoff personal checking account?

    Madoff paid himself and others through this account with hand written checks from the proceeds of his ill-gotten gains. Madoff’s hand written checks certainly could have foretold of the imminent collapse of the Ponzi scheme.

    How is it the JP Morgan, who invested $250,000,000 with Madoff through feeder funds at the same time Stephen Cutler (the former SEC Enforcement Director) became JP Morgan’s top lawyer, was able to escape the fall of Madoff right before the collapse of the Ponzi scheme late in 2008?

    JP Morgan was the only institutional investor that got out of the Madoff scam just in the nick of time – removing JP Morgan’s now $276,000,000 exposure to Madoff.

    A $26,000,000 profit I might add!

    What dirt does the former SEC Enforcement director have on others that keeps all authorities at bay?

    Blackmail is a lecherous tool of Wall Street.

    “What Are The Odds” that one of Cutler’s past misdeeds will be his undoing?

    When Khuzami leaves – I begin. I have been hoping and praying it would not come to this – hells bells.

    • Peter Scannell

      When was I first introduced to SEC Enforcement Director Stephen M. Cutler? Well lets just the initial introduction was one way!

      The very first thing I was asked to verify in my deposition with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Investigator General in February of 2009 was the email I sent to the previous SEC-OIG in January of 2003.

      The email to the SEC OIG and a corresponding phone call made by me to the SEC in January 2003, both communications describing the massive short-term trading of mutual funds by preferred investors taking place at my firm, was the very reason for the SEC to begin a four month long “routine regulatory review” beginning that same month – January 2003 (wink,wink).

      The Globe article linked should be a good read for those parties that may be interested.

      One question you should ask yourself after reading the reaction of the ex-regulators and others being quoted regarding the incomplete chronology of events reported in “SEC missed a chance in its probe of Putnam.”

      What would those individuals quoted think if it had been reported that in fact an identified whistle-blower contacted the SEC by both email, and a call, to report the activity and all of a sudden a four month long “routine regulatory review” takes place.

      How did the SEC “routine regulatory review” turn out?

      A big thumbs up for the reviewed?

      SEC Missed A Chance in Its Probe of Putnam

  • Peter Sivere

    From 2004. Nine years ago. Let’s try to get it right this time….

    JP Morgan Is Facing Heat of Patriot Act

  • Peter Sivere

    At one point, prosecutors contended that a senior Chase official lied to a state regulator to cover for Beacon Hill. After Beacon Hill’s lawyer told state banking officials at a meeting in January 2001 that XYZ planned to bank at Chase, a Banking Department lawyer, Sara Kelsey, followed up with Chase’s compliance chief, Greg Meredith. Mr. Meredith “deceitfully confirmed that the business was not yet in operation,” according to grand-jury minutes described in a memorandum of law submitted by Mr. Morgenthau on Oct. 21, 2003, as part of the Beacon Hill case. Mr. Meredith told Beacon Hill it would have to hire an outside consultant to review its regulatory compliance, according to a filing by prosecutors. Although Chase wanted an audit of Beacon Hill, its owner, Anibal Contreras, restricted the outside consultant to a review of its policies and procedures, the filing said.

    Mr. Meredith didn’t return a call, and a J.P. Morgan Chase spokeswoman said he wouldn’t have any comment. Mr. Meredith no longer serves as the bank’s head of compliance, according to one person familiar with the bank, in part owing to his failure to take more aggressive action in dealing with Beacon Hill.

  • Barry

    The orders issued by the US Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Monday against JPMorgan Chase may well disappoint the public. Compared with US authorities’ stance against non-US banks, the OCC and the Fed’s kid-gloves approach smells of protectionism. Compared with a full reckoning for banking mismanagement through the crisis, it falls short.

    The world economy was broken by banks’ cavalier attitude to risk and rules. When authorities suspect outright wrongdoing, a final finding for or against guilty conduct must be sought. Anything less is an insult to the public’s intelligence on top of the injury inflicted on their livelihoods.

    Regulators Should Take Off Kid Gloves

Recent Posts