First Posted: 02/ 9/11 04:59 PM Updated: 02/ 9/11 05:09 PM
WASHINGTON — A leading House Democrat said on Wednesday that executives at JPMorgan Chase are responsible for the deaths of soldiers who take their own lives under illegal financial pressure from the bank.
That charge, leveled by Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, came at the panel’s hearing Wednesday on violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by the megabank.
The law limits interest rates that banks can charge soldiers who are deployed abroad at 6 percent, a rule an executive at the hearing admitted the bank has broken.
“People who are under pressure commit suicide. I would call it homicide, frankly, because you are putting them under pressure. You are responsible for that,” Filner told Stephanie B. Mudick, a JPMorgan Chase executive vice president of consumer practices.
ONLY CHASE??????????????????????????????????????????
The ONLY good thing in this is that the whole country is seeing what kind of low lifes work at Chase. Jamie Dimon is the head low life asshole.
The only apologize because they got caught. They treat the rest of their “customers” much worse. They start the day with a pep talk on how many foreclosures they can get done in a day.
They also hire the scummiest attorneys who have absolutely no morals on this. Chase is a big part of the unemployment mess – ya gotta wonder IF they did not plan it so they could foreclose on home they never did own and have no right to !!!
There is an old adage “Liars figure but figures don’t lie”
JP Morgan Chase, a case study in Liars that figure.
This is a story that rivals the criminal activities of Enron’s Executives (“the smartest men in the room”) with one major difference, Enron’s victims were primarily investors, whereas Chases victims are vulnerable and financially distressed Chase customers. This includes US servicemen and their families and thousands of others facing foreclosure, with chase “gaming” the Obama MHAP program to steal from, and foreclose on, seniors seeking help from the federal program designed to provide financial relief.
Chase says it will pay more than $2 million to about 4,000 service member mortgage holders that were overcharged in interest while they were on active duty. The bank’s decision is linked to a five-year legal battle with Marine Capt. Jonathan Rowles, an F/A-18D weapons system officer who sued after the institution continued to charge him 9 or 10 percent interest on his mortgage — a violation of the Service members Civil Relief Act — and threatened to take his home. .
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is a story that will not be welcome or embraced by politicians influenced (if not corrupted) by big banking lobbyists.
This is a story that can change the way elected officials will level the playing field for the most vulnerable of our citizens victimized by the US banking system.
This is a story that needs to be pursued by the institutions that are chartered to challenge the criminal activities aimed at our most vulnerable and least protected citizens.
This is a story that should culminate in the prosecution of responsible Chase management under the “RICO Act’.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. While its intended use was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its application has been more widespread.
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.” RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A “person damaged in his business or property” can sue one or more “racketeers.” The plaintiff must prove the existence of a “criminal enterprise.” The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court. Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, “We don’t want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas.”
On March 29, 1989, financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pled guilty to six lesser offenses rather than face spending the rest of his life in prison.
On September 7, 1988, Milken’s employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was also threatened with a RICO indictment under the legal doctrine that corporations are responsible for their employees’ crimes. Drexel avoided RICO charges by pleading no contest to lesser felonies. While many sources say that Drexel pleaded guilty, in truth the firm only admitted it was “not in a position to dispute the allegations.” If Drexel had been indicted, it would have had to post a performance bond of up to $1 billion to avoid having its assets frozen. This would have taken precedence over all of the firm’s other obligations—including the loans that provided 96 percent of its capital. If the bond ever had to be paid, its shareholders would have been practically wiped out. Since banks will not extend credit to a firm indicted under RICO, an indictment would have likely put Drexel out of business.
Where are the “protectors’ of our most vunerable?
Robert Barry Hall, just another victim of “Liars that figure”.
Good luck getting anything from these guys. Been trying to get funds from deceased fathers 401k for months. JP Morgan keeps coming up with ways to stall. It’s like they are holding money hostage. Wondering if they are just doing it for interest on money or maybe their getting ready to fail? Anyone else having these problems?