RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeMadoff Verdict Further Indicts JPM, SEC and FINRA
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 25th, 2014 7:00 AM |
If the guilty verdict rendered yesterday in the trial of Madoff employees qualifies as full and fair justice in our nation, then we need to rethink our justice system.
Now, do not get me wrong. I do not have any sympathy for the sorry looking lot of defendants found guilty yesterday. In my opinion, they deserve what they get and were likely integral in aiding and abetting the massive fraud perpetrated by the swindler Bernard Madoff.
Are we to think, though, that the decades long scam perpetrated by Bernie and his rag tag team began and ended strictly inside his offices?
Folks, let’s not be so naive. (more…)
JP Morgan To Settle Madoff Claim: Wall Street ‘Code of Silence’
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 12th, 2013 10:20 AM |
News breaks this morning that JP Morgan, Bernie Madoff’s lead banker, is close to settling with the Feds under a seldom used deferred prosecution agreement.
What is that?
Think of it as the equivalent of: You guys and gals had better behave yourselves going forward or we’re going to need to revisit this! Truth be told, a deferred prosecution agreement is tougher than the standard “neither admit nor deny” treatment accorded Wall Street banks. How so? It “lists the bank’s criminal violations in a court filing but stops short of an indictment as long as JP Morgan pays the penalties and acknowledges the facts of the government’s case.” Let’s revisit the Madoff trustee’s lawsuit brought against Morgan from early 2011. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Madoff Trial Evidence Indicts NASD/FINRA
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 11th, 2013 8:46 AM |
For five years America has been fed a line of bull$h!t that absolved the regulators at the NASD and its offspring at FINRA from their oversight responsibilities in the operation that encompassed Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scam.
I never believed it for a second when regulators and assorted sycophants said that Madoff’s broker-dealer operation was fully separate and distinct from the Ponzi scheme.
I challenged former SEC chair Harvey Pitt in September 2009 when he tried to provide cover for the NASD/FINRA on its oversight and responsibilities related to Madoff. (Those interested can review that engagement and a lot more on the 20-minute video within this commentary.)
We awake this morning to learn startling new evidence from WSJ coverage of the ongoing Madoff trial, (more…)
Madoff Trial: Defendants Hope to Put SEC ‘On Trial’
Posted by Larry Doyle on November 6th, 2013 10:27 AM |
How did Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld escape the clutches of justice while steering his firm right into bankruptcy? He played the card that many Wall Street execs have played over the last 5 years.
Fuld and other Wall Street execs maintained that the regulators were right there in their offices — or perhaps more aptly described, “in bed with” them — so if the brakes were not applied to what they were doing, then how can they be held accountable. Hell, it worked for Fuld et al so why not keep playing the card, right?
We see an iteration of this very play being called once again in the ongoing trial of former Madoff employees. Bloomberg touches upon it this morning in writing: (more…)
JPM – Madoff: A Fine Would Simply Be ‘Cost of Biz’
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 24th, 2013 6:24 AM |
Unlike the token fines — akin to mere parking violations — that the American public has seen imposed on Wall Street to date, the DOJ now seems to want to regain some degree of credibility by writing up the major Wall Street banks for some speeding tickets.
The widely publicized but yet consummated $13 billion fine expected to be paid by JP Morgan is proposed as a template for similar fines likely of a smaller magnitude to be paid by other banks.
An outlier in this imposition of fines as being little more than a cost of doing business occurred yesterday when a jury returned a guilty verdict in a civil case brought against Countrywide (now a division of Bank of America) for fraud in the sale of mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This case is an exception rather than the rule but recall that it is a civil disposition and not a criminal proceeding.
Returning now to our regularly scheduled broadcast, we awake this morning and see that JPM is back in the news with the Feds talking about imposing a penalty on Jamie’s bank for its involvement with the Madoff scam. (more…)
The Madoff Trial: Conflicts of Interest
Posted by Larry Doyle on October 7th, 2013 10:30 AM |
Close to 5 years after Bernie Madoff turned himself in to authorities for running the largest acknowledged Ponzi scheme on Wall Street, America still knows little as to what truly transpired within those offices in the Lipstick Building on 3rd Avenue in midtown Manhattan.
Do you find it decidedly suspicious that the government has not brought the case against assorted individuals in Madoff’s operation for close to 5 years? I do.
Recall that none other than Harry Markopolos said that it took him little more than 5 minutes to know that Madoff was running a Ponzi scam.
Has the government employed stall tactics in just now bringing this case to trial so as to protect itself and its friends on Wall Street fromg its failures to properly regulate Madoff’s operation and protect investors? How so? (more…)
Madoff Offers to Names Names
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 29th, 2013 5:50 AM |
Has Uncle Sam closed the books on the Madoff investigation?
One would have to think so because there have been so few meaningful developments to emanate from the government’s ‘supposed’ pursuit of truth and justice in this case as to lead one to believe that the case is now closed.
Aside from a few ‘ne’er do well nitwits’ involved in Madoff’s operation, few if any meaningful names outside of the Madoff lair have been implicated in this massive scam.
Time may erode the public outrage over our government’s massive failure to protect and perform in this case but does that mean that justice neglected should remain justice denied? (more…)
JPM – Madoff Laundromat “Cleans” Empty Suits
Posted by Larry Doyle on January 15th, 2013 9:20 AM |
If a cop were to a issue a challenge (perhaps even a threat), and an organization calls the cop’s bluff and beats him like a drum in the process, what does that say about the cop, the organization, and the activity in question? To what do I allude?
Well, let’s say for example, a criminal uses a laundromat for the purpose of facilitating his “business” but the laundromat is not held to proper account. Did the “business activity” ever really occur there? Did the cops ever fully and properly investigate and enforce their duty to uphold the law?
Not that Americans are not already fully aware of the charades being played out in the world of financial regulation and oversight but the latest iteration really takes the cake. To what do I refer? (more…)
JP Morgan Holding Back Madoff Documents
Posted by Larry Doyle on January 4th, 2013 11:57 AM |
Four years after the fact and America still does not know what really transpired within the Madoff scandal. Who knew what? Who did what?
Are we supposed to believe that only Bernie and a few other miscreants within his web perpetrated this scam unbeknownst to others on Wall Street and within the halls of our financial regulators? That premise would take the definition of naivete to an exceptionally elevated level.
What other entities benefited from feeding off Bernie Madoff? Well, if we needed to rely on the likes of JP Morgan, we will seemingly never learn that info and likely more. Why is that? (more…)
JP Morgan’s Five P’s and Bernie Madoff
Posted by Larry Doyle on June 27th, 2012 7:59 AM |
Have you ever had an experience while reading something when you stop and think, “They didn’t just say that, did they?” I had just such an experience yesterday while reading a Bloomberg commentary on JP Morgan.
Under the heading of “You cannot make this stuff up,” I virtually gagged when I read of why JP Morgan had chosen not to allocate credit to Chesapeake Energy. Given current issues with Chesapeake, it would appear that JP Morgan’s decision not to engage Chesapeake was prudent. Then why the gag? (more…)
