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.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday November 18 2016, @05:24PM
...they will write it off as a bidness expense, so -effectively- all the rest of us end up paying the fine...
nice...
(Score: 2) by n1 on Friday November 18 2016, @05:41PM
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
> 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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:42PM
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
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:21PM
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
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
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.