If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Goldman-Sachs fined for its use of "robo-signers" in foreclosure cases. Unclear if they'll be able to satisfy the fine by skipping lunch today, or whether they'll actually have to dip into petty cash to cover it   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 26
    More: Interesting, Goldman Sachs, Federal Reserve, loan servicing, Peter Principle, remedies, Audit the Fed, board of governors, foreclosures  
•       •       •

735 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Sep 2011 at 3:32 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-09-02 12:29:07 PM  
The industry's fine works out to about $70 per capita, or two days of federal government spending.
 
wee
2011-09-02 01:13:24 PM  
Pig-farking whores...
 
2011-09-02 01:34:47 PM  
Are you Sarah Connor? Here is your eviction notice.
 
2011-09-02 03:47:26 PM  
Robo-Singers

www.toddlertime.com
 
2011-09-02 03:50:20 PM  
How about instead of a fine, we sue them for the amount of damage they caused and give that money back to the American people?
 
2011-09-02 04:52:37 PM  

MrEricSir: How about instead of a fine, we sue them for the amount of damage they caused and give that money back to the American people?


As if that fine won't ultimately be paid by consumers.

How about we sling the execs that ordered the practice of robo signing in jail for conspiracy to defraud? How is this not forgery? And how is selling off a loan with forged documentation (that invalidates the lien) not fraudulent?

They may argue they just did it to cut corners, but I'm sure a lot of people would find it convenient if they could just commit felonies and have their boss/customers just pay a fine. Personal responsibility, anyone?
 
2011-09-02 04:53:51 PM  
How about we throw them in federal prison. Fines do not scare these people.
 
2011-09-02 05:21:18 PM  
wether?
 
2011-09-02 05:36:43 PM  

wee: Pig farking-whores...


Isn't a "farking-whore" somewhat redundant?
 
wee
2011-09-02 06:51:16 PM  

Donnchadha: Isn't a "farking-whore" somewhat redundant?


It's all in the punctuation:

"This is Dan, and his big dog Dick."

"This is Dan and his big dog, Dick."
 
2011-09-02 07:23:21 PM  
Fining an organization like that is like punishing a coke cartel by confiscating a brick off their production line.
 
2011-09-02 07:31:25 PM  
cache.gawkerassets.com

"Kenny, you just can't spend petty cash like that!"
 
2011-09-02 08:06:20 PM  
goldman sachs farking with home mortgages? banks making bets in the market with your savings money. I sure wish we could get that f*cking genie back in the bottle.
 
2011-09-02 08:42:27 PM  
You don't dish out ANY fines in these cases. Mortgage documents are notarized, and it's the signature of the notary that was forged. Every robo-signing is equivalent to one criminal count of perjury.

Robo-signing is not a civil case. Robo-signing is a criminal case.

The ends to NOT justify the means when breaking white-collar laws. This is not self-defense or civil disobedience. This is FRAUD. The bankers committed a dizzying number of crimes and they're treating the whole farking thing like an "oops".

I know worse things have happened in history, but what's most chilling is the fact that people are even defending them.
 
2011-09-02 08:43:47 PM  

moof: How about we sling the execs that ordered the practice of robo signing in jail for conspiracy to defraud? How is this not forgery? And how is selling off a loan with forged documentation (that invalidates the lien) not fraudulent?


Corporations aren't people, you see... they're blameless entities. Blameless!
Hey, we didn't make the rules, we just play by 'em...

... oh wait... sorry, we did make the rules. Ha-hah!
Suckers.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-09-02 08:59:39 PM  
dragonchild

If you want to go after individuals for perjury, that's going to be a labor-intensive investigation and prosecution. You have to prove that a particular person was responsible for a particular false statement, beyond a reasonable doubt, probably using some very reluctant witnesses to make your case. And you get low-level drones unless you can prove that some higher up was knowingly responsible for some particular bit of perjury.

If you want to go after the corporation that may be somewhat easier, but under my state's law the maximum fine for perjury is $1,000.

The problem with big corporate financial crime is, in any indivudual case taking a payment in lieu of prosecution makes sense from the point of view of a prosecutor with a finite budget. Before the mortgage meltdown there was a story about drug companies taking the chance and marketing drugs for purposes for which they were not approved. (Under U.S. law doctors can prescribe "off label" uses but manufacturers can not encourage such use.) They make more off the cases that aren't prosecuted than they pay to get out of trouble.

I don't want a vastly increased prosecutorial budget. Hurts real people too much. If you're like the average Farker, you wouldn't like it if the government could afford a criminal trial for every kid with a joint, and the cops to go out and find them.

I heard a radio interview a few weeks ago with a former financial crime investigator. He suggested the solution to this mess should have been to hit one of the big financial firms hard with everything the Department of Justice has, because the hundreds of man years of investigative work for one big case takes everything the DoJ has. Kill one and the rest will be scared straight, he argued. But too many FBI agents were transferred from financial crimes to terrorism ten years ago and never moved back.
 
2011-09-02 09:04:03 PM  

ZAZ: If you want to go after individuals for perjury, that's going to be a labor-intensive investigation and prosecution.


No one, NO ONE ever said doing the right thing was easy. I'll admit I'm fringe minority for my views, but I won't apologize for holding people to a higher standard.
 
2011-09-02 10:43:25 PM  

relcec: goldman sachs farking with home mortgages? banks making bets in the market with your savings money. I sure wish we could get that f*cking genie back in the bottle.


Simple as re-passing Glass-Steagall. Too bad everyone except the people in DC and Wall Street seem to think that's a good idea.
 
2011-09-02 10:50:18 PM  

moof: MrEricSir: How about instead of a fine, we sue them for the amount of damage they caused and give that money back to the American people?

As if that fine won't ultimately be paid by consumers.

How about we sling the execs that ordered the practice of robo signing in jail for conspiracy to defraud? How is this not forgery? And how is selling off a loan with forged documentation (that invalidates the lien) not fraudulent?

They may argue they just did it to cut corners, but I'm sure a lot of people would find it convenient if they could just commit felonies and have their boss/customers just pay a fine. Personal responsibility, anyone?


You should read some of James K. Galbraith's writings (new window) on the subject. Not only would this be the right thing to do, it's also very likely the smart thing to do economically.
 
2011-09-03 12:31:10 AM  
Oww!

www.upstreamonline.com
 
2011-09-03 01:15:34 AM  

Heron: relcec: goldman sachs farking with home mortgages? banks making bets in the market with your savings money. I sure wish we could get that f*cking genie back in the bottle.

Simple as re-passing Glass-Steagall. Too bad everyone except the people in DC and Wall Street seem to think that's a good idea.


no one has ill ever have the balls to break up those massive banks. worst, decision, ever.
 
2011-09-03 10:42:55 AM  

dragonchild: You don't dish out ANY fines in these cases. Mortgage documents are notarized, and it's the signature of the notary that was forged. Every robo-signing is equivalent to one criminal count of perjury.

Robo-signing is not a civil case. Robo-signing is a criminal case.

The ends to NOT justify the means when breaking white-collar laws. This is not self-defense or civil disobedience. This is FRAUD. The bankers committed a dizzying number of crimes and they're treating the whole farking thing like an "oops".

I know worse things have happened in history, but what's most chilling is the fact that people are even defending them.


here's the problem with treating this as a criminal case: Do that and folks like GS get off scott-free . The way criminal law works, we'd only get to prosecute hundreds of flunkies making barely above minimum wage who actually did the robo-signing, not the huge banks that benefited from their actions
 
2011-09-03 01:00:52 PM  

Magorn: here's the problem with treating this as a criminal case: Do that and folks like GS get off scott-free . The way criminal law works, we'd only get to prosecute hundreds of flunkies making barely above minimum wage who actually did the robo-signing, not the huge banks that benefited from their actions


Couldn't you give the flunkies immunity if they testify against the bosses, and prosecute those under the RICO act?
 
2011-09-03 06:26:34 PM  

dragonchild: ZAZ: If you want to go after individuals for perjury, that's going to be a labor-intensive investigation and prosecution.

No one, NO ONE ever said doing the right thing was easy. I'll admit I'm fringe minority for my views, but I won't apologize for holding people to a higher standard.


I'm sickened by the rationalization that it's better to not prosecute and excuse criminal behavior of rich people/organizations because prosecution is expensive.

It seems to me that when a 'big drug' or 'big malfeasance case' rolls around in the justice department, they seem to jump all over each other to allocate resources to achieve a conviction. I don't know why a financial crime is any different.
 
2011-09-04 11:45:08 AM  

moof: Couldn't you give the flunkies immunity if they testify against the bosses, and prosecute those under the RICO act?


Bingo. There is legal precedent for this.

Not to mention, I'm not soft on people who justify following orders for a paycheck. I've risked my job in some seriously precarious financial situations to do the right thing. Is it terrifying as hell? Damn right it is. But a funny thing happens when the pushover scrub suddenly says "enough". . . you never know when someone will stand up and get your back.

Some surprising things can happen in life if you resist the urge to institutionalize apathy. Such as, a chilling effect on working for BoA as a robo-signing scrub. Unemployment may be high, but not many people will risk going to jail for a paycheck.

imashark: It seems to me that when a 'big drug' or 'big malfeasance case' rolls around in the justice department, they seem to jump all over each other to allocate resources to achieve a conviction. I don't know why a financial crime is any different.


Political pressure, mostly. Prosecuting Dickie "Slick Hands" Johnson of GoldMansacks is a bit tough when his PAC makes five-figure contributions to 70% of Congress while voters are "refusing to give another dime" out of indignation. Pulling weight for Marcos "Cracko" Gonzalez is unpopular in D.C. even if Dickie's own children are found to clients.
 
2011-09-04 11:17:24 PM  

relcec: no one has ill ever have the balls to break up those massive banks. worst, decision, ever.


The last guy who tried to fight the banks didn't make it six months...

www.reformation.org
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report