Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
How Trump's Political Appointees Overruled Tougher Settlements with Big Banks
David Fahrenthold RetweetedHeres how Trump appointees at DOJ overruled staff prosecutors to go easier on big banks. New from me and @kevinwack:
Link to tweet
How Trumps Political Appointees Overruled Tougher Settlements With Big Banks
After talks with well-connected lawyers for Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, senior Justice Department officials in Washington last year told career prosecutors whod been investigating the banks misdeeds to settle for less than they wanted.
by Jesse Eisinger, ProPublica, and Kevin Wack, American Banker Aug. 2, 5 a.m. EDT
This article was produced in partnership with American Banker.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublicas Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
Since Donald Trumps election, federal white-collar enforcement has taken a big hit. Fines and settlements against corporations have plummeted. Prosecutions of individuals are falling to record lows.
But just how these fines and settlements came to be slashed is less well understood. Two settlements with giant banks over financial crisis-era misdeeds provide a window into how the Trump administration has eased up on corporate wrongdoers.
In settlements last year with the two big U.K.-based banks, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, political appointees at the Trump administration Justice Department took the unusual step of overruling staff prosecutors to reduce the settlements sought, leaving billions of dollars in potential recoveries on the table, according to four people familiar with the settlements.
In the case of RBS, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided that the charges should not be pursued as a criminal case, as the prosecutorial team advocated, but rather as a less serious civil one.
Both cases were developed by the Obama administration DOJ and involved accusations that the banks misled buyers of residential mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 financial crisis. Prosecutors seemingly found numerous examples of bankers knowingly selling lemons to their customers. The mortgages they were putting into securities were total fucking garbage, one RBS executive said in a phone call that was recorded and cited in a DOJ filing. A Barclays banker said a group of loans scares the shit out of me. Mortgages that went into the two banks securities lost a total of $73 billion, according to calculations used by the government.
In March 2018, the DOJ settled with Barclays for $2 billion, a sum dictated by Trump appointees that was far below what the staff prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn had sought. The settlement with RBS occurred in August 2018, for $4.9 billion. After Rosenstein downgraded the case from criminal to civil, other Trump appointees concluded that the settlement amount should be about half of what staff prosecutors in the District of Massachusetts had sought.
....
Aspects of how the DOJ came to settle the cases have been recounted. The New York Times reported on Rosensteins decision in the RBS case. But this is the first extensive account of how the banks secured the favorable outcomes.
....
Jesse Eisinger is a senior reporter and editor at ProPublica.
Jesse.Eisinger@propublica.org | @eisingerj
After talks with well-connected lawyers for Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, senior Justice Department officials in Washington last year told career prosecutors whod been investigating the banks misdeeds to settle for less than they wanted.
by Jesse Eisinger, ProPublica, and Kevin Wack, American Banker Aug. 2, 5 a.m. EDT
This article was produced in partnership with American Banker.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublicas Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
Since Donald Trumps election, federal white-collar enforcement has taken a big hit. Fines and settlements against corporations have plummeted. Prosecutions of individuals are falling to record lows.
But just how these fines and settlements came to be slashed is less well understood. Two settlements with giant banks over financial crisis-era misdeeds provide a window into how the Trump administration has eased up on corporate wrongdoers.
In settlements last year with the two big U.K.-based banks, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, political appointees at the Trump administration Justice Department took the unusual step of overruling staff prosecutors to reduce the settlements sought, leaving billions of dollars in potential recoveries on the table, according to four people familiar with the settlements.
In the case of RBS, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided that the charges should not be pursued as a criminal case, as the prosecutorial team advocated, but rather as a less serious civil one.
Both cases were developed by the Obama administration DOJ and involved accusations that the banks misled buyers of residential mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 financial crisis. Prosecutors seemingly found numerous examples of bankers knowingly selling lemons to their customers. The mortgages they were putting into securities were total fucking garbage, one RBS executive said in a phone call that was recorded and cited in a DOJ filing. A Barclays banker said a group of loans scares the shit out of me. Mortgages that went into the two banks securities lost a total of $73 billion, according to calculations used by the government.
In March 2018, the DOJ settled with Barclays for $2 billion, a sum dictated by Trump appointees that was far below what the staff prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn had sought. The settlement with RBS occurred in August 2018, for $4.9 billion. After Rosenstein downgraded the case from criminal to civil, other Trump appointees concluded that the settlement amount should be about half of what staff prosecutors in the District of Massachusetts had sought.
....
Aspects of how the DOJ came to settle the cases have been recounted. The New York Times reported on Rosensteins decision in the RBS case. But this is the first extensive account of how the banks secured the favorable outcomes.
....
Jesse Eisinger is a senior reporter and editor at ProPublica.
Jesse.Eisinger@propublica.org | @eisingerj
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 926 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post