https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-d3tn0ZzcMTU/TM3rPQnUFqI/AAAAAAAAAGQ/9eo7P3nrymw/s400/suicide_banker.jpg

 

Banksters Pretend that Prosecuting Wall Street Crime Will Blow Up the Economy

Banksters Pretend that Prosecuting Wall Street Crime Will Blow Up the EconomyThe Department of Justice is “considering” initiating criminal charges against 2 banks.

In response, the normal cast of characters is saying – as they have for years – that prosecuting banks will cause a meltdown of the economy.

The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York recently mocked the silly claims of gloom and doom:

Companies, especially financial institutions, will do almost anything to avoid a tough enforcement action and therefore have a natural and powerful incentive to make prosecutors believe that death or dire consequences await,” he said. “I have heard assertions made with great force and passion that if we take any criminal action, the skies will darken; the oceans will rise; nuclear winter will be upon us; and the world as we know it will end.”

As we’ve repeatedly noted, this is wholly untrue.

Indeed, prosecuting the individual Wall Street executives who knowingly committed criminal fraud won’t harm the economy.  After all, the main driver of economic growth is a strong rule of law. And numerous Nobel prize winning economists have said that prosecuting Wall Street white collar is necessary for a prosperous economy.

Proof that prosecuting criminal fraud doesn’t hurt the economy  comes from Iceland:

[The U.S. and Europe have thwarted white collar fraud investigations ... let alone prosecutions.] On the other hand, Iceland has prosecuted the fraudster bank heads (and here and here) and their former prime minister, and their economy is recovering nicely … because trust is being restored in the financial system.

In response to the sky-is-falling spouting banking apologists, professor of law and economics – and chief S&L prosecutor – William Black  explains:

First, no banker is “too big to jail.” They are easily replaceable and removing a fraudulent bank CEO from power is the single most productive act that regulators and prosecutors can accomplish. [The Department of Justice's chief of criminal prosecutions] Breuer and Attorney General Eric Holder were involved in a con when they claimed that their failure to prosecute the senior bank officers leading the frauds was in any way related to “too big to fail.” Hilariously, they even applied the “rationale” for non-prosecution to former bank officers – as if a bank would fail “because” its former officers were prosecuted. It is a testament to the weakness of the reportage that this claim was not treated with ridicule.

Second, valid fraud prosecutions do not “cause” a business to fail. The fraud causes them to fail. They should fail when their “profits” arise from fraud. In particular, they should fail in the case of accounting control fraud because their “profits” are the fictional product of accounting fraud. The markets and the economy are greatly improved when fraudulent enterprises are destroyed. ***

Third, very little is actually “destroyed,” when we place a fraudulent bank in receivership, fire the crooked CEO, and sell the bank to an acquirer of integrity and competence. The new bank will, net, be greatly improved because it has been freed from control by the fraudulent leadership that was “looting” the bank (George Akerlof and Paul Romer, 1993, “Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit”).

Fourth, there is rarely a need to prosecute a bank. In virtually every case in which the bank’s frauds cause serious harm senior officers of the bank will have led the fraud and profited from it. Everyone in law enforcement realizes that any effective deterrence will come from prosecuting those officers and not only removing their fraud proceeds but also imposing fines that will leave the officers bankrupt.

Fifth, the bank’s controlling officers are in an immense conflict of interest when their frauds are detected. They control the bank and its resources. Their first priority is to prevent their own prosecution. Their second priority is to prevent any substantial “claw back” of their compensation. Their third and fourth priorities are to do the same for less senior officers. This isn’t altruism (though it certainly has an aspect of class-based affinity). Fraudulent CEOs realize that it is risky to allow the prosecutors to gain any leverage over more junior officers who may “flip” and testify against the CEO. The fraudulent officers controlling the bank, therefore, will gladly trade seemingly huge fines in exchange for obtaining their top four priorities.

[Finally, the government's policy of not prosecuting Wall Street criminals] produces what Akerlof and Romer warned was the “sure thing” of CEO “looting” through accounting control fraud plus the assurance that the CEO will not be prosecuted, forced to surrender his fraud proceeds, or forced to pay fines that bankrupt him.Unsurprisingly, the result has been unprecedented accounting control fraud by elite banksters.***

None of this explains why they don’t prosecute bankers (much less ex bankers)

Indeed, the whole if-y0u-prosecute-the-economy-dies scam is like the 2008 bailouts. As we wrote at the time:

Congressmen Brad Sherman and Paul Kanjorski and Senator James Inhofe all say that the government warned of martial law if Tarp wasn’t passed.

***

As Karl Denninger wrote yesterday:

[S]ounds like “Bail me out or I will crash everything.”

Isn’t that analagous to walking into a bank, opening one’s coat to reveal an explosives-laced belt, and saying “gimme all the money or everyone dies!”

I noted in November:

In the 1974 comedy Blazing Saddles, Cleavon Little plays the new sheriff in an old Western town. The sheriff is African-American, and when he rides into town for the first time, the [racist] townspeople pull out their guns and are about to shoot him.

But he quickly puts a gun to his own head, pretends he’s scared of his own gun, and says “BACK OFF OR THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN GUY GETS IT!!!” The townspeople are dumb and fall for it, suddenly terrified that he’ll kill himself. Here’s the scene.

That’s what Wall Street is doing with the bailout.

The fat cats on Wall Street are saying “give us a lot of money, and buy all of our bad debt for a lot more than its worth, or Wall Street will get it and we’ll go into a depression!”

Are Americans stupid enough to fall for it?

In a recent interview, William K. Black uses the exact same Blazing Saddles sheriff-bank analogy.

***

Any way you look at it, the too big to fails are not needed and they are dragging our economy into a black hole. Like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles … they are playing us for fools.

[Yves Smith] shared another analogy with me: a man with 15lbs. of Semtex strapped to his waist. She says “any surprise people in the vicinity are very attentive to his desires?”

Indeed, it’s the old protection racket.

Category: Bailouts, Legal, Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

8 Responses to “Wall Street Threaten to Blow Up Economy If They’re Prosecuted”

  1. Expat says:

    your Blazing Saddles quote is wrong but I suppose that was self-censorship and justified.

    I still maintain my position that I put forth here at least four years ago: Neutron Bombs on Wall Street. It is not “a few bad apples”. It is institutionalized criminality, fraud, and excess. I apologize to the “innocent” in advance but if you wanted a respectable job, you should have become hookers, Mob hitmen, or pedophile priests, all of them callings with a greater level of public utility.

    And I also disagree with the premise that we cannot prosecute entire institutions. Can you seriously convince me that without GS the world stops turning? They add nothing that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Take the GS employees out (figuratively, I suppose but literally would be better) and you still have the phones, computers, and buildings. Bring in new grads to do all the stuff that GS did but without the unnecessary complexity and theft.

    In tandem with the silly bit about human extinction, I think the best way to save mankind would be to eliminate (figuratively, you NSA and DHS pricks!) NYC, DC, and Beijing.

    • Petey Wheatstraw says:

      The quote caught my eye, also (it actually subordinated my attention to the rest of the post).

      Quite a cultural dance we do. Mel Brooks could walk into a room with his balls out, and be completely respected after everyone stopped laughing.

      As for the banks, to prosecute them WOULD crash the system — but only because the system is an ongoing criminal enterprise, to the point that it has become a de facto kleptocracy.

  2. rd says:

    Has anybody noticed that Congress is frothing at the mouth over the VA gaming of wait lists Wall Street-style in order to get penny ante bonuses? The only question Wall Street is asking about this is why the VA officials would hagve gone to so much effort over just a few thousand dollars. Wall Steet uses these types of gaming techniques on metrics and markets all the time but makes sure to do it for millions of dollars at a pop – otherwise, the effort is just not worth their time. I haven’t seen Congress frothing at the mouth over the Wall Street gaming.

    • willid3 says:

      wonder were the banksters or VA management got the idea on how to game their systems? hard to tell isn’t it? was it the VA management that showed the banksters how to cover their tracks? or the other way around? i have no problem with prosecuting the bankster or who ever commits fraud (or even having the banks the banksters run be nationalized! and then broken up into pieces and sold off) as long as the rest of us who are not impacted by it. and its seems like that is very possible, as others have demonstrated.

      and i wonder if the FBI will investigate the VA management, didnt they commit a crime too by not reporting correct data? its not like they made an error, they purposely did it. all to make them look better and to make Congress happy by not asking for the money needed to actually do what they are to be doing

      shouldnt just those who committed the fraud be punished? its like a bank robbery where the business next door gets crushed because of the bank robbery, that happened next door, which had nothing to do with that business.

      • rd says:

        All along I felt that the banks should be investigated so that the individuals complicit in the frauds would be prosecuted. In general, I believe that a large corproate entity should be criminally prosecuted only when you actively want to put it out of business. However, people are replaceable – it happens all the time and the companies don’t fail. You nail a bunch of VPs and a CEO or two for fraud, give them five years in the pen, and the behavior of the industry would improve instantly. Instead, we allow then to get larger bonuses and for some reason they continue to do the same actions that led to their company being fines in the first place.

  3. oleditor says:

    I cannot understand why we’re even having this debate. The law is the law, and the president, attorney and other officials are sworn to uphold it. Enforcing any law often involves collateral damage. The federal government (actually primarily during the Clinton administration) let the banks get so big. I recall well the debate then, with the banks arguing that because of then-existing laws and regulations, they could not compete with the large European ones. So it was allowed to happen, and many of Europe’s banks, it turned out, were in worse shape than the American ones. Had Glass-Steagall remained the law, the banks would be smaller, more ethically run, and financially sound. Prosecute both the banks and responsible officers, penalize them appropriately (that is, until it hurts), and get it over with. In the long run, it’s best for all. Then rewrite the laws and regs so that retail banks do only that, and if investment banks choose to speculate, they bear the consequences.

  4. James Shannon says:

    How dare they “Threaten to Blow Up The Country”! What Hubris! And how disgusting can this get, when everyone knows the CentaMillionaire$ and Billionaire$ ALREADY used the politicians to “Blow up Main Street” and that my Fellow Flag Waving Americans is a FACT of Observed Reality!
    Americans may have been cowed into going along with all the corruption but that too will change!