Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday November 18 2016, @05:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the #drainwallstreet dept.

Bloomberg reports that a settlement has been reached after the U.S. Department of Justice investigated indications that

[...] JPMorgan employees at the bank's Hong Kong subsidiary sought to maximize profits by providing jobs and internships to children of individuals it hoped to do business with.

The settlement provides that the bank will pay around $264 million, and that the investigation will be ended with no prosecution.

"[A]t least five other" undisclosed banks are under investigation for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday November 18 2016, @05:24PM

    by art guerrilla (3082) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:24PM (#428934)

    ...they will write it off as a bidness expense, so -effectively- all the rest of us end up paying the fine...
    nice...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by n1 on Friday November 18 2016, @05:41PM

    by n1 (993) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:41PM (#428951) Journal

    That brings up this years legal expenses for JP Morgan up to around $1.43bn dollars, before the cost of lawyers... I'm sure lessons will be learned and new safeguards will be introduced to stop rogue traders, departments, divisions, subsidiaries from going outside the company policy and understood interpretations of the regulations which JP Morgan only has the greatest respect for.

    Almost $1bn of that was for pleading guilty (for a change) to fixing foreign currency rates, but those good eggs at the SEC gave them a waiver from any tangible penalty beyond the fines, enabling them to continue business as usual.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:47PM (#428958)

      > but those good eggs at the SEC gave them a waiver from any tangible penalty beyond the fines, enabling them to continue business as usual.

      A major part of that is that the SEC has been strangled by underfunding. [thefiscaltimes.com] They simply don't have the resources for robust enforcement actions against well-funded cheats.

      You can count on that getting even worse going forward.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @06:07PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 18 2016, @06:07PM (#428979) Journal
        So what? The point of the SEC is merely to engender trust in financial institutions. They don't need funding for that.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:42PM (#429000)

          How do you do enforcement if you have no one to assign to any cases? And how do you litigate cases if you don't have lawyers to litigate? The SEC chairman saw the writing on the wall and knew that they were going to be doing squat under the next administration, and she just resigned [washingtonpost.com] two years before her term was up.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:58PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:58PM (#429013)

            From that article:

            “If we want strong economic growth and more freedom, we must empower Americans, not Washington bureaucrats,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said this summer when he released a blueprint for undoing Dodd-Frank.

            It is obvious that when he says "Americans" he means "Wallstreet."

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @07:13PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 18 2016, @07:13PM (#429026) Journal
            Again, what is this talk of enforcement? The point I'm making here is that the SEC is first and foremost an organization for creating gullibility in a huger number of would-be investors. Maybe second on the list would be protecting existing cartels and oligopolies in the relevant fields of commerce. Law enforcement is a very distant priority in comparison.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:21PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:21PM (#429033)

              Your begging the question is tiresome. Quit it with the bullshit virtue signaling already.
              Your cynical disinterest in holding institutions accountable is exactly what gives them permission to fail the public interest.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @08:18PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 18 2016, @08:18PM (#429085) Journal
                I don't respect the SEC or its alleged mission. And I believe the SEC is used precisely to lull the US public into a false sense of security with respect to investing in the stock market and related things.

                As to your accusation of begging the question, why is the SEC underfunded in the wake of the 2007-2008 real estate crisis? Isn't it peculiar in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that any law enforcement agency is underfunded after a huge crisis? I think that establishes that the primary role of the SEC isn't, as intended by the lawmakers, to enforce laws.
                • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 18 2016, @08:52PM

                  by bob_super (1357) on Friday November 18 2016, @08:52PM (#429105)

                  Technically, the SEC does enforce laws. That's why the people who come to power since 2010 have decided to defund it, like they will now defund the EPA.
                  It doesn't mean that the people working for the agency itself are not motivated and competent, just actors playing a lie for the greater good.

                  The Republicans are acting as if Dodd-Frank had been written by evil commies trying to kill the USA (who signed it?), and not by a bunch of lobbyists for the banks, who made sure there are enough loopholes to do profits-as-usual despite the appearances that consumers are protected from another subprime-like crisis ...

                  Have they seen the quarterly benefits of the banks? The amount of aplomb (or denial of reality) required to be a Republican member of congress never ceases to amaze me.