9 ms·

That is because prison is not the punishment for most of those offenses. Before you say shit about the U.S. judicial system, you should learn something about i

by rprasad 14y ago

That is because prison is not the punishment for most of those offenses. Before you say shit about the U.S. judicial system, you should learn something about it. SEC and FTC violations are civil offenses. The punishment for civil offenses are fines. Plenty of firms and higher-ups have paid fines. Jail time only applies in cases where deliberate fraud is proven to have occurred. We all know that the finance guys were too reckless in their pursuit of profits. But recklessness is not a crime (and indeed, the only crime in the U.S. system for which "recklessness" is relevant is manslaughter/murder).

anonymoushn 14y ago
Wells Fargo admits to 55,000 counts of perjury: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/28/us-usa-foreclosures-wellsfargo-idUSTRE69Q5OE20101028 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/28/us-usa-foreclosure...
- tedunangst 14y ago
  The word perjury does not appear on that page.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    It does not, but in order to foreclose you state, under risk of perjury, that the details are right. I've been following foreclosure stories for a while. The DAs are willfully asleep - hundreds of thousands of perjuries have been committed and documented, tens of thousands have been confirmed by the perjuring entity (as in this case), but the legal system is not interested in pursuing justice. Read Deninger's "The Market Ticker" or ZeroHedge for (almost daily) specific details.
    - intended 14y ago
      Afai can recall, only a few DAs are fighting - the DA of NY being one of them. Usually the DA's office goes tooth and nail after offenders, so there must be a reason, I presume.
      - beagle3 14y ago
        Of course there's a reason. Regulation is deeply captured http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture (reading this article and all the examples in it, some of them very recent, will be an eye opener if you are not familiar with them. Or cause you to put an SEP field over the whole thing because it looks too crazy to be true)
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      Usually a perjury charge requires that you know the truth and tell a lie, knowingly and willingly. I'm not sure where negligence comes into it, but I think you'd have to prove WF knew their filings were wrong, as opposed to just careless. Also, it's rare to prosecute for perjury when the defendant volunteers the new version, as that would discourage past liars from ever coming forward with the truth. In other news, I amended my tax return a few years ago. I do not generally refer to that event as the time I committed perjury.
      - beagle3 14y ago
        > Usually a perjury charge requires that you know the truth and tell a lie, knowingly and willingly. I'm not sure where negligence comes into it, but I think you'd have to prove WF knew their filings were wrong, as opposed to just careless Foreclosures are different, and for a good reason. One of the statements you make (similarly to DMCA takedowns) is something along the lines of "I have done my due diligence, and I assert under risk of perjury that the info contained below is correct." If your bad foreclosure (or DMCA takedown) is taken to court, you should be able to prove that a mistake happened in spite of your due diligence. Unlike amended taxes, or patent infringement, the results of an unjustified foreclosure might be fatal and essentially irrecoverable for the foreclosed party. > Also, it's rare to prosecute for perjury when the defendant volunteers the new version, as that would discourage past liars from ever coming forward with the truth. No truth was volunteered willingly here. They are challenged in court every day, and often shown to be fraudulent! After a lot of these, they went back to revise. It is rare to prosecute when someone corrects themselves with a good excuse. It is not rare to prosecute when someone admits perjury with no good explanation (and really, you should look into it, e.g. on Deninger's market ticker - the only explanation here is greed, which is not good enough). Unless you are a big bank. > In other news, I amended my tax return a few years ago. I do not generally refer to that event as the time I committed perjury. Perjury requires, as you stated, making a knowingly wrong statement. (Will does not enter the equation, only knowledge). If you knowingly filed a fraudulent tax return - then, yes, you have possibly committed perjury - but unless you are already on the IRS' sight, not much is likely to happen.
Karunamon 14y ago
>We all know that the finance guys were too reckless in their pursuit of profits. But recklessness is not a crime (and indeed, the only crime in the U.S. system for which "recklessness" is relevant is manslaughter/murder). Perhaps this is a facet of law that people should lobby to get changed. The kind of wanton disregard shown by the finanical sector during the recent meltdown damn well should be a crime, if it isn't already.
- stfu 14y ago
  In my opinion rechlessness is necessary to bring society forward. This behavior induces change to the system and breaks the status quo. Sure, this has often bad consequences, but daring to break the status quo should be generally rewarded, and only regulated in cases where the negative impact on society gets too extreme/long term.
  - r00fus 14y ago
    Fine. Except the "recklessness" was given AAA status by ratings agency, making it difficult to properly assess risk. Risky investments guised as Safe should very well be illegal - it's fraud.
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      It's so funny how I agree with you and the parent. Recklessness changing the world: Charles Lindberg But of course he didn't sell tickets to his first voyage And sure, branding something it's barely valued more than the paper it's printed on is fraud.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    As a general rule of thumb? Sure. When you're gambling with other people's money (and lives to a point)? No.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    Do whatever the hell you want with your own money (set fire to it, if you feel like it), but if you're trusted with other people's money, you shouldn't be "reckless". It's not a video game that you can return to last "saved" point before your ridiculous adventures if they prove to be wrong.
sbov 14y ago
Because everything you said has nothing to do with money or influence. Hint: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4339418 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4339418
philwelch 14y ago
That's not enough! There's a recession, so the rich must be punished for it, due process or not! /sarcasm
- cutie 14y ago
  People are not generally angry at "the rich," but rather the fat leaches on the govt and financial sectors. I've not heard anyone complaining about the self-made man.
  - koenigdavidmj 14y ago
    > I've not heard anyone complaining about the self-made man. Usually those are disguised as arguments that there are not actually any self-made men, but people who rode on their society.
cperciva 14y ago
the only crime in the U.S. system for which "recklessness" is relevant is manslaughter/murder. Hmm, isn't there a specific offense of "reckless endangerment of a child"?
- rprasad 14y ago
  At the state level, yes. *But not at the federal (U.S.) level. These distinctions matter.
  - cperciva 14y ago
    Ok. I'm Canadian, so all US law blurs together to me (especially since in Canada, criminal law is under the sole jurisdiction of the federal government).
    - hncommenter13 14y ago
      In the US it's a mix. Quoting from a recent post[1] on a law professor blog regarding the relationship between the states and the federal government on criminal matters: "...[T]he states and the federal government are not exactly co-equals in the criminal law sphere. The states have general police powers while the federal government has limited powers; the states inherited the common law while the federal government must enact statutory offenses." [1] http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/03/can-federal-border-patrol-agents-pull-over-cars-based-only-on-state-traffic-law-violations/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/03/can-federal-border-patrol-a...
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Most criminal prosecutions in the US happen at the state level.
      - cperciva 14y ago
        Well, in Canada all criminal prosecutions happen at the provincial level -- the Federal government defines the criminal law, but the Provincial governments are responsible for the "administration of justice". Which can make things interesting when the governments don't agree on whether something should be illegal or not...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sehugg 14y ago
Here's a low-level Countrywide loan officer that got 15 years in prison: http://www.fbi.gov/phoenix/press-releases/2012/former-countrywide-loan-officer-sentenced-to-15-years-in-prison-and-ordered-to-pay-22-million-in-restitution/ http://www.fbi.gov/phoenix/press-releases/2012/former-countr... Here's the ex-CEO of Countrywide getting his criminal investigation dropped after settling with the SEC for $67.5 million: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/criminal-investigation-of-countrywide-chief-ends/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/criminal-investigatio... I'm seeing a pattern here.
- tome 14y ago
  You're seeing a pattern in two datapoints?
  - AJ007 14y ago
    I see a pattern of off topic stories being posted to HN
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Does Bernie Madoff's sentence lie on or off the line connecting your two datapoints?
  - KoulMomo 14y ago
    Bernie Madoff's mistake is that he screwed over other rich people.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      I like (as in don't like) how that's the excuse for every counter example. Just like how Martha Stewart only went to jail because she didn't play golf with the right people.
kenster07 14y ago
In China, financial fraud is punishable by death. It is at once crude and effective. The subprime bubble may never have ever occurred if the perpetrators knew they would literally be risking their lives.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  It is only effective against people the party doesn't like. State sanctioned fraud is less frequently punished.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - kenster07 14y ago
    Though the death penalty is too extreme, once one accepts that financial fraud literally destroys lives, one must also concede that financial fraud calls for an equally harsh punishment.
mtgx 14y ago
So what you're saying is that fines are just the cost of doing business for the big fraudsters.
ktizo 14y ago
In that case why can jaywalkers be charged with the crime of reckless endangerment in the US without anyone killed, or hurt? Reckless endangerment in Nevada occurs when someone allegedly "neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property." So if a police officer believes that you were deliberately jaywalking in a careless way that could hurt someone else, you may face reckless endangerment charges. If no death or substantial bodily harm results from an alleged act of reckless endangerment in Nevada, the charge will be a gross misdemeanor carrying up to $2,000 in fines and/or up to one year in jail. http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/jaywalking.html http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/jaywalking.html
Spooky23 14y ago
In the United States, a US Attorney with the political will and backing could convict virtually any citizen. One broad statute is honest services fraud. Basically, if you have a fiduciary duty to someone and commit an act that could reasonably be expected cause economic harm, you've committed a felony. There are many other laws that could be used to lock up many bankers, assuming the will existed to do so.
- rprasad 14y ago
  The honest services fraud statute was struck down earlier this year...

by rprasad 14y ago

anonymoushn 14y ago

Wells Fargo admits to 55,000 counts of perjury: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/28/us-usa-foreclosures-wellsfargo-idUSTRE69Q5OE20101028 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/28/us-usa-foreclosure...

tedunangst 14y ago
The word perjury does not appear on that page.
- beagle3 14y ago
  It does not, but in order to foreclose you state, under risk of perjury, that the details are right. I've been following foreclosure stories for a while. The DAs are willfully asleep - hundreds of thousands of perjuries have been committed and documented, tens of thousands have been confirmed by the perjuring entity (as in this case), but the legal system is not interested in pursuing justice. Read Deninger's "The Market Ticker" or ZeroHedge for (almost daily) specific details.
  - intended 14y ago
    Afai can recall, only a few DAs are fighting - the DA of NY being one of them. Usually the DA's office goes tooth and nail after offenders, so there must be a reason, I presume.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      Of course there's a reason. Regulation is deeply captured http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture (reading this article and all the examples in it, some of them very recent, will be an eye opener if you are not familiar with them. Or cause you to put an SEP field over the whole thing because it looks too crazy to be true)
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Usually a perjury charge requires that you know the truth and tell a lie, knowingly and willingly. I'm not sure where negligence comes into it, but I think you'd have to prove WF knew their filings were wrong, as opposed to just careless. Also, it's rare to prosecute for perjury when the defendant volunteers the new version, as that would discourage past liars from ever coming forward with the truth. In other news, I amended my tax return a few years ago. I do not generally refer to that event as the time I committed perjury.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      > Usually a perjury charge requires that you know the truth and tell a lie, knowingly and willingly. I'm not sure where negligence comes into it, but I think you'd have to prove WF knew their filings were wrong, as opposed to just careless Foreclosures are different, and for a good reason. One of the statements you make (similarly to DMCA takedowns) is something along the lines of "I have done my due diligence, and I assert under risk of perjury that the info contained below is correct." If your bad foreclosure (or DMCA takedown) is taken to court, you should be able to prove that a mistake happened in spite of your due diligence. Unlike amended taxes, or patent infringement, the results of an unjustified foreclosure might be fatal and essentially irrecoverable for the foreclosed party. > Also, it's rare to prosecute for perjury when the defendant volunteers the new version, as that would discourage past liars from ever coming forward with the truth. No truth was volunteered willingly here. They are challenged in court every day, and often shown to be fraudulent! After a lot of these, they went back to revise. It is rare to prosecute when someone corrects themselves with a good excuse. It is not rare to prosecute when someone admits perjury with no good explanation (and really, you should look into it, e.g. on Deninger's market ticker - the only explanation here is greed, which is not good enough). Unless you are a big bank. > In other news, I amended my tax return a few years ago. I do not generally refer to that event as the time I committed perjury. Perjury requires, as you stated, making a knowingly wrong statement. (Will does not enter the equation, only knowledge). If you knowingly filed a fraudulent tax return - then, yes, you have possibly committed perjury - but unless you are already on the IRS' sight, not much is likely to happen.

Karunamon 14y ago

>We all know that the finance guys were too reckless in their pursuit of profits. But recklessness is not a crime (and indeed, the only crime in the U.S. system for which "recklessness" is relevant is manslaughter/murder). Perhaps this is a facet of law that people should lobby to get changed. The kind of wanton disregard shown by the finanical sector during the recent meltdown damn well should be a crime, if it isn't already.

stfu 14y ago
In my opinion rechlessness is necessary to bring society forward. This behavior induces change to the system and breaks the status quo. Sure, this has often bad consequences, but daring to break the status quo should be generally rewarded, and only regulated in cases where the negative impact on society gets too extreme/long term.
- r00fus 14y ago
  Fine. Except the "recklessness" was given AAA status by ratings agency, making it difficult to properly assess risk. Risky investments guised as Safe should very well be illegal - it's fraud.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    It's so funny how I agree with you and the parent. Recklessness changing the world: Charles Lindberg But of course he didn't sell tickets to his first voyage And sure, branding something it's barely valued more than the paper it's printed on is fraud.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  As a general rule of thumb? Sure. When you're gambling with other people's money (and lives to a point)? No.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  Do whatever the hell you want with your own money (set fire to it, if you feel like it), but if you're trusted with other people's money, you shouldn't be "reckless". It's not a video game that you can return to last "saved" point before your ridiculous adventures if they prove to be wrong.

sbov 14y ago

Because everything you said has nothing to do with money or influence. Hint: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4339418 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4339418

philwelch 14y ago

That's not enough! There's a recession, so the rich must be punished for it, due process or not! /sarcasm

cutie 14y ago
People are not generally angry at "the rich," but rather the fat leaches on the govt and financial sectors. I've not heard anyone complaining about the self-made man.
- koenigdavidmj 14y ago
  > I've not heard anyone complaining about the self-made man. Usually those are disguised as arguments that there are not actually any self-made men, but people who rode on their society.

cperciva 14y ago

the only crime in the U.S. system for which "recklessness" is relevant is manslaughter/murder. Hmm, isn't there a specific offense of "reckless endangerment of a child"?

rprasad 14y ago
At the state level, yes. *But not at the federal (U.S.) level. These distinctions matter.
- cperciva 14y ago
  Ok. I'm Canadian, so all US law blurs together to me (especially since in Canada, criminal law is under the sole jurisdiction of the federal government).
  - hncommenter13 14y ago
    In the US it's a mix. Quoting from a recent post[1] on a law professor blog regarding the relationship between the states and the federal government on criminal matters: "...[T]he states and the federal government are not exactly co-equals in the criminal law sphere. The states have general police powers while the federal government has limited powers; the states inherited the common law while the federal government must enact statutory offenses." [1] http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/03/can-federal-border-patrol-agents-pull-over-cars-based-only-on-state-traffic-law-violations/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/03/can-federal-border-patrol-a...
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Most criminal prosecutions in the US happen at the state level.
    - cperciva 14y ago
      Well, in Canada all criminal prosecutions happen at the provincial level -- the Federal government defines the criminal law, but the Provincial governments are responsible for the "administration of justice". Which can make things interesting when the governments don't agree on whether something should be illegal or not...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

sehugg 14y ago

Here's a low-level Countrywide loan officer that got 15 years in prison: http://www.fbi.gov/phoenix/press-releases/2012/former-countrywide-loan-officer-sentenced-to-15-years-in-prison-and-ordered-to-pay-22-million-in-restitution/ http://www.fbi.gov/phoenix/press-releases/2012/former-countr... Here's the ex-CEO of Countrywide getting his criminal investigation dropped after settling with the SEC for $67.5 million: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/criminal-investigation-of-countrywide-chief-ends/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/criminal-investigatio... I'm seeing a pattern here.

tome 14y ago
You're seeing a pattern in two datapoints?
- AJ007 14y ago
  I see a pattern of off topic stories being posted to HN
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
tedunangst 14y ago
Does Bernie Madoff's sentence lie on or off the line connecting your two datapoints?
- KoulMomo 14y ago
  Bernie Madoff's mistake is that he screwed over other rich people.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    I like (as in don't like) how that's the excuse for every counter example. Just like how Martha Stewart only went to jail because she didn't play golf with the right people.

kenster07 14y ago

In China, financial fraud is punishable by death. It is at once crude and effective. The subprime bubble may never have ever occurred if the perpetrators knew they would literally be risking their lives.

tedunangst 14y ago
It is only effective against people the party doesn't like. State sanctioned fraud is less frequently punished.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- kenster07 14y ago
  Though the death penalty is too extreme, once one accepts that financial fraud literally destroys lives, one must also concede that financial fraud calls for an equally harsh punishment.

mtgx 14y ago

So what you're saying is that fines are just the cost of doing business for the big fraudsters.

ktizo 14y ago

In that case why can jaywalkers be charged with the crime of reckless endangerment in the US without anyone killed, or hurt? Reckless endangerment in Nevada occurs when someone allegedly "neglects any duty imposed by law in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property." So if a police officer believes that you were deliberately jaywalking in a careless way that could hurt someone else, you may face reckless endangerment charges. If no death or substantial bodily harm results from an alleged act of reckless endangerment in Nevada, the charge will be a gross misdemeanor carrying up to $2,000 in fines and/or up to one year in jail. http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/jaywalking.html http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/jaywalking.html

Spooky23 14y ago

In the United States, a US Attorney with the political will and backing could convict virtually any citizen. One broad statute is honest services fraud. Basically, if you have a fiduciary duty to someone and commit an act that could reasonably be expected cause economic harm, you've committed a felony. There are many other laws that could be used to lock up many bankers, assuming the will existed to do so.

rprasad 14y ago
The honest services fraud statute was struck down earlier this year...