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

Friday, May 17, 2013

Even When Goldman Sachs Wins a Lawsuit, It Still Looks Bad

Recently, Goldman Sachs has won a couple of rounds with the law, but it didn't look very admirable while so doing.  First, in UK Uncut's bid for a judicial review of HM Revenue & Customs deal with Goldman Sachs, the actions were declared not illegal which allowed Goldman to avoid paying about £20 million in taxes.

Goldman threatened to withdraw from the UK government's "bank code of practice" which would have embarrassed the Chancellor of the Exchequer.   So for the sake of a Goldman hissy fit that would have embarrassed the Chancellor, Goldman avoids paying taxes while the UK citizens "enjoy" austerity.  This avoidance of a tax payment by Goldman is described as "not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue." 

Second, we have a New York state appeals court dismissing ACA's lawsuit against Goldman here.

Goldman Sachs Wins Even When Muzzled by the Feds
By Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg
. . . .
The case captures perfectly why much of the public detests “neither admit nor deny” regulatory settlements. We don’t know whose facts to believe. Without trials or admissions of liability, the government’s allegations remain unproven. Sure, Goldman paid a big fine. That doesn’t establish anything. For all we know it paid the money just to make the SEC go away.

The result is surreal: Goldman still isn’t allowed to deny the agency’s claims that it misled ACA. However, a court has thrown out ACA’s claims that Goldman did, in fact, mislead it.

To make matters more confusing, there may not be anything factually inconsistent between this week’s court ruling and the SEC’s earlier allegations. To win a fraud suit as a private litigant, ACA needed to show that it justifiably relied on Goldman’s misrepresentations. (The court said the insurer failed this test.) The SEC, by contrast, doesn’t have to prove that an investor relied on a defendant’s misstatements. Plus, the SEC said Goldman defrauded multiple parties, not just ACA. 

Read the whole article here


Post a Comment