GoldmanSachs666 Message Board

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain
*As defined in Wikipedia

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Why Goldman Sachs Will Never Be Held Criminally Responsible

We have been searching for years through many articles to try to find out why no executives of the big banks have been prosecuted for their crimes committed before and during the financial crisis.  We also wonder why none of the banks has been accused of corporate crime (accounting control fraud).

The editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, Russell Mokhiber, tells us in Counterpunch why corporations like Goldman Sachs will never face anything but "deferred and non prosecution agreements" under the present Justice system.  That is an unusual idea when you consider that the Supreme Court went out of its way to give corporations the status of personhood and yet the Attorney General of the US prefers to go after individual criminals rather than corporate ones.

In any case, corporations that commit crime seem to be given a pass (see MF Global).

No Fault Corporate Crime
By Russell Mokhiber - Counterpunch

. . . .
Today, major American corporations are still committing crimes on a regular basis.

But the difference is today major American corporations are rarely convicted of their crimes.

It’s not that they no longer engage in corporate criminal behavior.

It’s that they have set up a system where they no longer have to plead guilty to their crimes.

Instead, they settle these major corporate crime cases with deferred and non prosecution agreements.

These are the criminal equivalents of the neither admit nor deny consent decrees used for decades by the Securities and Exchange Commission and that recently have come under fire by federal judge by Jed Rakoff in New York.

. . . . 

It’s shameful that more than three years since the financial crisis crippled the American economy there has not been a single prosecution of a Wall Street firm even though fraud and financial misrepresentations played a significant role in the meltdown.

Read the entire article here   


Post a Comment