HuffPO-

The sweetheart deals just keep coming. Lawbreakers at one bank after another are let off the hook as their shareholders write a check. And then they go out and repeat the illegal behavior they promised not to do in the last settlement.

It shouldn’t be surprising that this keeps happening over at the SEC – especially as long as Robert Khuzami continues to serve as Director of the Commission’s Division of Enforcement.

But while each of these deals has been shameful, destructive, and outrageous, the $22 million agreement with Goldman Sachs which the SEC announced today – another one in which the guilty party “neither confirms nor denies wrongdoing” – looks like the worst one yet.

The SEC has the power to shut Goldman Sachs down for what it did, and the offenses it describes are felonies. But they just gave out another slap on the wrist – no, make that a pat on the wrist – with today’s announcement.

The Worst Thing…

[HUFFINGTON POST]

Alison Frankel-

If you’re a lawyer who advises securities issuers, there was an ominous confluence of events Friday. Kenneth Lench of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Enforcement Division said publicly, according to Bloomberg, that the SEC is considering enforcement actions against lawyers who helped put together dubious transactions involving complex securities. And quicker than you could say Janus Capital v. First Derivative, the full Commission issued a notice that it’s reviewing the scope of protection the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling offers secondary-player defendants in enforcement actions. (Hat tip: Securities Law Prof Blog.)

The Janus decision, you’ll recall, held that Janus Capital wasn’t liable for the alleged misstatements its mutual funds made in an offering prospectuses. The Supreme Court said that only the funds “made” the offending statements, no matter how much of a behind-the-scenes role the parent company played. Janus hasn’t turned out to be an absolute bar on claims against financial advisers — National Century bondholders won a summary judgment ruling last month that permits them to proceed with their securities fraud case against Credit Suisse — but continued the line of Supreme Court rulings that has made it increasingly difficult for investors to tag secondary players with liability.

[ON THE CASE -REUTERS]

Litigation Release No. 22305 / March 23, 2012

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wells Fargo & Company, Civil Action No. CV-1280087 CRB Misc. (N.D. Cal. March 23, 2012)

.

.

SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Wells Fargo for Failure to Produce Documents in Mortgage-Backed Securities Investigation

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has filed a subpoena enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Wells Fargo & Company. According to the filing, the Commission is investigating possible fraud in connection with Wells Fargo’s sale of nearly $60 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities to investors. Pursuant to subpoenas dating back to September 2011, the bank was obligated to produce (and agreed to produce) documents to the Commission, but has failed to do so. Accordingly, the Commission filed its Application for an Order Requiring Compliance with Administrative Subpoenas.

The Commission’s action relates to its investigation into whether Wells Fargo made material misrepresentations or omitted material facts in a series of offerings between September 2006 and early 2008. The Commission’s application explains that, in connection with the securitization of the loans, a due diligence review of a sample of the loans in each offering was performed. Certain loans within that sample would be dropped from the offering for failure to comply with Wells Fargo’s loan underwriting standards. However, according to the Commission, it does not appear that Wells Fargo took any steps to address similar deficiencies in the remainder of the loans in the pool, which were securitized and sold to investors. The Commission is investigating, among other things, whether Wells Fargo misrepresented to investors that the loans being securitized complied with the bank’s loan underwriting standards.

The staff in the Commission’s San Francisco Regional Office issued several subpoenas to Wells Fargo since September 2011 seeking, among other things, materials related to due diligence and to the bank’s underwriting guidelines. According to the Commission, Wells Fargo agreed to produce the documents, and set forth a timetable for doing so, yet has failed to produce many of the materials.

Pursuant to its Application, the Commission is seeking an order from the federal district court compelling Wells Fargo to comply with the Commission’s administrative subpoenas and to produce all responsive materials to the staff. The Commission notes that it is continuing to conduct a fact-finding inquiry and has not concluded that anyone has broken the law.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2012/lr22305.htm

alarm image: DealBreaker

Since the DOJ failed miserably with mountains of evidence of fraud throughout the loans, lets see what the SEC will do.

CBS-

The SEC appears to be on the verge of doing what the Justice Department has yet to attempt — prosecuting the biggest players responsible for the mortgage securities fiasco that trashed the U.S. economy.

The securities watchdog has sent so-called Wells notices to Goldman Sachs (GS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), and Wells Fargo (WFC), indicating that the agency may recommend enforcement proceedings against the banking firms. The investigation seems to focus on whether the companies misrepresented the quality of securities based on subprime mortgages that they bundled and sold to investors in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

[CBS]

Bloomberg-

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. were warned by federal regulators that they may face civil claims tied to sales of mortgage-backed securities.

Goldman Sachs received a so-called Wells notice Feb. 24 from the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to disclosures for a late-2006 offering of $1.3 billion in subprime residential mortgage-backed securities, the firm said today in an annual financial report. Wells Fargo said it also got an SEC notice as the government examines whether it properly described facts and risks in offering documents.

[BLOOMBERG]

Alison Frankel-

U.S. District Judge Frederic Block of Brooklyn federal court will probably, in the end, approve a $1 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and former Bear Stearns fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin. He said as much in open court Monday, presiding over a settlement hearing rather than the civil trial scheduled to begin that day. But for everyone except Cioffi, Tannin, and their lawyers, the real story at Monday’s hearing was Block’s stream-of-consciousness musings on the appropriate role of a judge overseeing an SEC case. If there was any doubt that U.S. Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff has inspired soul-searching in the nation’s federal judiciary, the utterly compelling transcript of the hearing before Block should put it to rest. (My Reuters colleague Jessica Dye attended the hearing and sent me the transcript.)

[REUTERS LEGAL]

Scribd

Oh Boy! What will they do now without these magical words?

NYT-

The Securities and Exchange Commission, in a fundamental policy shift, said Friday that it would no longer allow defendants to say they neither admit nor deny civil fraud or insider trading charges when, at the same time, they admit to or have been convicted of criminal violations.

The change is the first time that the S.E.C. has stepped back from its longstanding practice of allowing companies to settle fraud charges by paying a fine without admitting wrongdoing. The new policy will also apply to cases where a company or an individual enters an agreement with criminal authorities to defer prosecution or to not be prosecuted as part of a settlement.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

Those of you who’ve had any dealings with Ameriquest may find this interesting…

Via William McCloskey

William McCloskey worked for Ameriquest from November 2004 till March 2005. William was fired after he reported illegal activity behind the walls of his Ameriquest branch, which virtually mirrored all of the widespread reports about the company (to local detectives, the PA Attorney General, the S.E.C. and the F.B.I).

William sued Ameriquest Mortgage Company under the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. The act pertained to publicly traded companies and issuers of securities under Section 15(d) and 12h-3 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

[WJM 7]

NYT-

The federal judge overseeing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud case against Citigroup became even more direct in his criticism of the agency’s actions on Thursday, accusing the commission of misleading both his court and the federal court of appeals.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com

One by One, judges are going to finally have enough of the ponzi’s.

To the judges who aren’t turning a blind eye… thank you.

NYT-

A federal judge in Wisconsin has challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission over a proposed settlement of fraud charges against a publicly traded company, citing as a precedent the agency’s pending case against Citigroup.

That represents a significant expansion of the impact of the Citigroup case, in which Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Federal District Court in New York threw out a proposed settlement between the company and the S.E.C.

Judge Rakoff said he had rejected the Citigroup settlement because there were no established facts on which to base a decision whether the settlement was “fair, reasonable, adequate and in the public interest.”

[NEW YORK TIMES]

New Economic Prospectives-

The Wall Street Journal ran a story today (12/27/11) entitled “SEC Ups Its Game to Identify Rogue Firms.”

“Rogue” is an interesting word with a range of definitions. When it is used as an adjective its meaning is: “a playfully mischievous person; scamp.” The trivialization of the most destructive elite frauds is one of the most common forms of what criminologists call “neutralization” of the moral content of wrong doing. Neutralization increases crime.

The actual story makes it clear that the criminals that the SEC was identifying were not “rogues.” They were the CEOs of seemingly legitimate firms. The SEC is identifying “accounting control frauds” – the frauds that cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime combined. The SEC is not identifying a few rotten apples, but roughly 100 hedge funds likely to have engaged in accounting fraud. The WSJ describes the SEC’s identification system:

“The list is the low-tech product of a high-tech effort by the SEC to crack down on fraud at hedge funds and other investment firms. After the agency failed to detect the $17.3 billion Ponzi scheme by Bernard L. Madoff, who wowed investors with steady returns over several decades, SEC officials decided they needed a way to trawl through performance data and look for red flags that might signal a possible fraud.

In 2009, the SEC began developing a computer-powered system that now analyzes monthly returns from thousands of hedge funds. Officials won’t say exactly how it works or how much it cost to build, but the agency has announced four civil-fraud lawsuits filed as a result of what it calls the “aberrational performance initiative.”” The SEC should be applauded for finally understanding that “if it’s too good to be true; it probably isn’t true.” Our agency put a similar system in place in 1984 to identify the S&L accounting control frauds that were driving that crisis. A quarter-century later, the SEC began to follow our well-trodden trail – but only with regard to felons inhabiting the middle of the fraud food chain (hedge funds). 

The SEC has, inevitably, discovered that accounting fraud is common among …

[NEW ECONOMIC PROSPECTIVES]

Once gain both the twins were part of the ponzi using MERS, exactly as the rest of the other shareholders (Banks) sought it out to be…a Strawman!

NY Times-

There is so much about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that we should be angry about.

In their heyday, these strange hybrids — part corporation, part government agency — were the biggest bullies in Washington, quick to bludgeon critics who dared suggest that their dual missions of maximizing profits while making homeownership affordable for low- and moderate-income Americans were incompatible. They steamrolled their regulator and pushed back at any suggestion that their capital was inadequate.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

U.S. government investigates mortgage bosses for financial recklessness but are not looking into any jail time.