(no title)
johngalt | 1 year ago
The most egregious stuff in 2008 was mispricing MBSs. Incorrectly pricing risk is pretty far from stealing money from investors/depositors.
johngalt | 1 year ago
The most egregious stuff in 2008 was mispricing MBSs. Incorrectly pricing risk is pretty far from stealing money from investors/depositors.
no_wizard|1 year ago
>for a fraudulent and deceptive scheme to package and sell residential mortgage-backed securities that the bank knew contained a material amount of materially defective loans.
If that's not enough, if we want to look just beyond 2008, they pulled a scam to manipulate the part of the settlement which was suppose to 4 billion in loan relief for home owners[3] by forgiving phony mortgages.
I have more, if so desired, but I didn't want this to turn into a hundred link dump of information that would be very dense to read.
[0]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/jamie-dimon-billion-...
[1]: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/jamie-dimons-13-bi...
[2]: https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/943201311191510319...
[3]: https://billmoyers.com/story/special-investigation-americas-...
derangedHorse|1 year ago
StanislavPetrov|1 year ago
>Reuters has found that some of the biggest U.S. banks and other "loan servicers" continue to file questionable foreclosure documents with courts and county clerks. They are using tactics that late last year triggered an outcry, multiple investigations and temporary moratoriums on foreclosures.
>In recent months, servicers have filed thousands of documents that appear to have been fabricated or improperly altered, or have sworn to false facts. Reuters also identified at least six "robo-signers," individuals who in recent months have each signed thousands of mortgage assignments -- legal documents which pinpoint ownership of a property. These same individuals have been identified -- in depositions, court testimony or court rulings -- as previously having signed vast numbers of foreclosure documents that they never read or checked.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/special-report-banks-s...
nipponese|1 year ago
But then you have to ask if the institutions doing the application verifications were criminally negligent.
oldgradstudent|1 year ago
That wasn't negligent. It was intentional.
Not by the institution, but by the officers acting against the interests of the institution.
A tiny example out of so many: it is against the interest of a secured lender to inflate appraised value or allow them to be inflated.
Yet, starting at 2004, appraisers across the country started reporting that they were being pressured to inflate appraisals and blacklisted when they refused.
This is clear indication of fraud against the institution and regulators. There is simply no honest reason to inflate appraisals.
nradov|1 year ago
throwaway81523|1 year ago
User23|1 year ago
[1] https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-testimon...
vlovich123|1 year ago
MattGaiser|1 year ago
You would need to classify everything from consumer reports to industry awards to not inviting influencers who give negative reviews to events as stealing as well.
victorbjorklund|1 year ago
Yea, probably there was invidual cases of bribing like in all industries. But overall the issue wasn't oughtright bribes.