4 ms·
That was probably William Black. His usual point is that the lack of prosecutions is a result of the investigatory system having being gutted. He says that in t
by gruseom 13y ago
That was probably William Black. His usual point is that the lack of prosecutions is a result of the investigatory system having being gutted. He says that in the S&L scandal, his agency made 10,000 criminal referrals to the DoJ, while in the recent (much larger) crisis they made 0.
According to Black, the common argument that nothing can be prosecuted because it was all (perhaps regrettably) legal is totally wrong; rather, standard investigative procedures were simply not applied because there weren't the investigators to do it, and what you don't investigate you don't find.
- pasbesoin 13y agoThat name sounds familiar. I recall also his describing how they would "work up the chain". Where they had evidence of culpability at a lower level, they would use it to apply pressure to "flip" such employees against their management. I think the description you cite is well taken. I know someone who is fairly senior in the SEC. They have more or less confirmed what I've also read. The SEC is supposed to be self-funding. The revenue they take in (fees, etc.) has been far in excess of their budget. Instead of staffing up (woefully needed; occasionally promised -- most recently a couple of years ago; never delivered), Congress -- who sets their budget after incorporating that revenue into the general budget -- has treated them as a cash cow. People need to look beyond "regulation is good/bad" labels, to learn and understand what is actually going on -- the specific circumstances.